Generate a data-driven lineup with tactical reasoning, using team, opponent, and available players to restrict selection.
Suggest a batting order with reasoning. Pass available as player names or ids to restrict it to who is actually turning up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | ||
| opponent | No | ||
| available | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It does reveal that the tool generates 'reasoning' and that the 'available' parameter restricts the suggestion to specific players. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what kind of output is returned (e.g., ordered list, explanation format), or any potential limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter-specific guidance is concise and directly helpful. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three optional parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It clarifies only one parameter and lacks any guidance on return format, data sources, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'predict_lineup'. An agent would struggle to know whether team/opponent are needed or what the output structure looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undefined parameters. It does explain the 'available' parameter ('player names or ids'), adding real meaning beyond the schema. However, it completely ignores the 'team' and 'opponent' parameters, leaving the agent without any understanding of their expected values or purpose. This partial coverage is not enough for the tool to be used correctly in all scenarios.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Suggest a batting order with reasoning.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates the tool from general baseball stats tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'predict_lineup', which could be interpreted as a overlapping or alternative tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by instructing that 'available' should be passed 'as player names or ids to restrict it to who is actually turning up.' This implies when to use the tool—when you have roster availability information—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'predict_lineup' or 'lineup' tools. There is no exclusionary or conditional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.