list_matchesMatches with sides, scores, courts and times. Filter by state or round; paginate with after_match_number for large tournaments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| round | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| tournament_key | Yes | The tournament's organiser key (starts with tk_) | |
| after_match_number | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matches | Yes | ||
| next_after_match_number | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds return structure (sides, scores, courts, times), filter capabilities, and pagination behavior (after_match_number). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the core return value and then present filters and pagination. No filler or redundancy.
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 read-only list tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers what is returned, how to filter, and how to paginate large tournaments. Missing details like default ordering are not essential given the output schema and schema constraints.
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?
Only tournament_key is described in the schema (20% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the semantics of state (filter), round (filter), and after_match_number (pagination). Limit is self-explanatory with schema min/max, so overall good.
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 title 'List matches' plus description 'Matches with sides, scores, courts and times' clearly identifies a read/list operation for match details. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning filters and pagination, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description and doesn't reference alternatives.
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 states filters (state/round) and pagination for large tournaments, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_schedule or get_results, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools serve overlapping purposes: get_pdf and get_pdf_link both return PDF artifacts, get_schedule and list_matches both provide match scheduling info, and get_results vs. get_standings can be confused for finished tournaments. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions (embedded vs. link, upcoming vs. all matches, final vs. current standings), and roster-management tools are clearly separated by action.
All 30 tools consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_tournament, record_results, withdraw_player). The only slight variation is the mix of get_* and list_* for read operations, but that's a common and predictable convention. There are no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 30 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the domain is complex, this count is heavy and may overwhelm agents, especially since several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_pdf/get_pdf_link, get_schedule/list_matches). A more streamlined set around 20 tools would be more appropriate.
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for tournament management: create/delete/end tournaments, manage players (add, remove, replace, withdraw, promote, update), generate draws, record results, handle doubles pairs, reschedule, retrieve standings/schedule/results, export/PDF, audit log, undo changes, and feedback. No major gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.