LiveScore MCP by Nova (CIVAI)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema — automatic competition-key resolution and server-side conversion to API DD/MM/YYYY. It says nothing about failure modes (unknown competition, no fixtures that day), whether the call is read-only, or what volume of fixtures comes back.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before behavior and usage instruction; nothing is padded. Minor redundancy in restating competition examples already present in the schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema and only four flat parameters, so the description needs only to establish purpose, date/format handling, and the auto-resolution behavior — all of which it does. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (empty result sets, unrecognized competition names), which an agent would likely need to call the tool confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, and the description's query examples merely repeat the schema's own examples. The one added signal is the anti-guessing instruction tied to the date parameter, which reinforces that the agent must supply a real date rather than infer one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Football fixtures for one competition on one date') and adds scope that pins it down: exactly one competition, exactly one date. It also discloses the automatic league-key resolution (World Cup → WorldCupBrazil2014), which separates this from a generic search 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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'Always call this for fixtures today — do not guess dates or schedules,' which is a real routing signal rather than an implied one. It does not name the alternatives (e.g. get_live_scores for in-progress matches, get_match for a single fixture), so the boundary with siblings is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that all timestamps are GMT/UTC, but says nothing about what the response contains beyond 'matches and scores', pagination, or freshness/refresh behavior — relevant for a live-score feed.

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, zero waste, with the core scoping ('currently live') front-loaded and the timezone caveat second. 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?

For a zero-required-parameter read lookup with fully documented schema, the definition covers scope, currency, and timestamp convention, and implying 'matches and scores' signals return content. Minor gap: no note on how 'live' is determined or refresh cadence, but nothing an agent strictly needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are optional with descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing about 'language' or 'notification_message' beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource scope ('currently live football matches and scores'), which an agent can distinguish from get_match (single match) and get_competition_day_fixtures (scheduled day). It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'currently live' implies the usage context, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_match or get_competition_day_fixtures, and gives no conditions or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data categories, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for invalid ids, rate limits, or what happens when h2h data is unavailable for a match.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the payload in a compact parenthetical. No filler, though the parenthetical could have been spent on when-to-use guidance instead.

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 four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what comes back but nothing about failure modes, id sourcing, or how this differs from the live-scores sibling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only echoes that head-to-head is optional; it adds no meaning for 'language' or the unusual 'notification_message' parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed match information') and enumerates the payload (events, lineups, stats, optional head-to-head). It does not distinguish this from sibling get_live_scores, so an agent must infer that this is the per-match detail call rather than the live listing.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_live_scores or get_competition_day_fixtures. The only implicit cue is the required match id, which comes from the schema, not the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about error behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or what the response shape looks like. The peculiar 'notification_message' follow-up-failure parameter is not explained at all.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and key return areas front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little content.

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 simple single-resource read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It leaves the unusual notification_message semantics and failure behavior unaddressed, and doesn't indicate whether missing players produce an error or an empty result.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description adds only the 'by player ID' framing for the required id and says nothing about the language or notification_message parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed player information (stats, career) by player ID') and clarifies the returned content areas. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_team and get_match, but does not explicitly name an alternative or scope boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of how to obtain a player ID (e.g. via the 'search' sibling), nor of when get_team would be a better choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior when the ID is invalid, auth requirements, or response shape beyond 'squad, stats'. It also ignores the notification_message/language fallback behavior entirely.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key and returned content come first. It is efficient, though the parenthetical list is the only thing giving it substance.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate: purpose and returned entities are clear. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose return structure and failure behavior, which it does not.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the ID format example and the notification_message semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed team information'), and specifies the content returned (squad, stats) and the lookup key (team ID). It implicitly separates itself from get_team_image by promising squad/stats data, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is only inferable.

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 phrase 'by team ID' implies this tool follows a search step, but the description never says when to use this versus search, get_team_image, or get_player, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the return type (PNG URL) and lookup key, implying a simple read operation, but it does not cover missing-logo behavior, auth requirements, or URL durability.

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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no redundant or wasted wording. It communicates the core action and return type immediately.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and return value. A minor gap remains around what happens when a team has no logo.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the id meaning with 'by team ID' but adds no detail beyond the structured parameter definitions, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get a team logo PNG URL by team ID. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_team 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_team. The lookup key implies context, but the description does not route the agent between sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (the message is echoed back), which is the main thing an agent needs, but it says nothing about auth requirements, side effects, or what a failure looks like. Adequate but not rich for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 trivial two-parameter diagnostic tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs in order to call it. It could add one clause on what a successful versus failed response indicates, but the gap is minor.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'echo back a message' maps to the required message field. The second parameter, notification_message, gets no mention in the description, but the schema fully covers it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and effect ('echo back a message') plus the tool's role as a 'Health check', which is enough to tell it apart from the sports-data siblings. It is clear but terse, and does not explicitly say it is a connectivity/diagnostic probe versus a data 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Health check' — an agent can infer it is for verifying the server is reachable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of the other siblings. Nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to any other call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the default behavior when query is omitted, explains that query filters or searches, and warns that get_fixtures returns empty for cups. It does not state auth/rate-limit traits or explicitly that the operation is read-only, but 'List' strongly implies a safe read.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the core action, then default behavior, then the chaining rule. All sentences carry useful information, though the multiple clauses in one block make it slightly crammed.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains the default return (featured major competitions with keys) and how query changes that. It does not describe the full return shape (e.g. what fields accompany each key), leaving a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces query behavior and examples but adds little beyond the schema's own 'Omit for all featured competitions with keys' wording. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list football competition and league API keys. It also explicitly differentiates downstream behavior (get_league_fixtures vs get_fixtures), so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools.

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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'ALWAYS call this before fetching fixtures when the user names a league or tournament.' It also names the correct and incorrect alternatives (get_league_fixtures vs get_fixtures), covering both when to use this tool and which sibling to chain next.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the resolution priority (live, today FT, most recent past, upcoming), the normalization strategy, and the return contract including the found: false failure case. It omits tie-breaking behavior when several fixtures match and any latency/rate characteristics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the routing rule, then resolution logic, then return shape and the anti-pattern warning. The implementation detail about suggest normalization earns its place by justifying fuzzy input handling.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value (match_id plus structured home/away teams, or found: false). It could go further by saying the returned match_id is meant to be passed to get_match/get_live_scores, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it tells the agent the query is a full 'Team A vs Team B' phrase that gets Google-suggest normalized and league-inferred, so the input need not be exact. notification_message is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (resolves) and resource (the best matching fixture for a Team A vs Team B query), and positions itself as the entry point of a workflow rather than a fetcher like get_match or get_live_scores. The 'Do not guess match ids' line makes the boundary against guessing/get_match-by-id explicit.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('First step for any Team A vs Team B query') and an explicit prohibition ('Do not guess match ids'), which tells the agent when to route here rather than fabricate an id. It does not name a specific sibling as the fallback/alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about ranking, result caps, whether partial/fuzzy matches are returned, or what a match actually contains. It also leaves the unusual notification_message parameter completely unexplained, which for a read-only search is a surprising part of the contract.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavior detail noted elsewhere.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what comes back (entity IDs, names, types) so the agent can chain into get_team or get_player. The schema covers parameter meaning, but the description is otherwise too thin to fully ground correct use.

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 100%, so each parameter (including country and language filters and the notification_message fallback text) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the q parameter's meaning and adds nothing about filter interaction or matching semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and enumerates the resource types searched (teams, players, competitions) plus the search key (name). This is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_team, get_player, or list_competitions, which cover overlapping entities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this lookup-by-name tool versus the many ID-based siblings (get_team, get_player, get_match) or resolve_vs_query and list_competitions. The agent is left to infer the routing, including whether the returned results feed those other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.