Retrieve fantasy basketball proposals filtered by status—open, approved, rejected, or pending—to review recommended trades, lineup moves, and waiver actions before executing in Yahoo.
Proposals by status: open (default) | pending_review | pending_approval | approved | rejected | expired | awaiting_owner | done | failed | null for all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | open |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the status enum semantics but says nothing about ordering, result size, or pagination behavior for a list endpoint.
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?
A single dense line that front-loads the resource and the default value, with no filler. Piping the enum inline is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting other parameter context.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the status semantics are adequate, but the limit parameter's behavior and the result set characteristics are unaddressed. Reasonably complete, with a clear remaining gap.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does fully specify the status parameter's valid values, default, and null-for-all semantics. The limit parameter is left completely unexplained (no max, no meaning), so compensation is only partial.
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 name plus 'Proposals by status' clearly identifies a status-filtered listing tool, and the enumerated status values make the scope concrete. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling get_proposal or proposal_steps, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.
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?
It documents the default ('open') and the null escape hatch ('null for all'), which is genuine guidance on how to call it. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_proposal or when listing is appropriate, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.