Fetches soccer fixtures/events for a specific date, optionally filtered by match ID or team name. Use this to find scheduled upcoming matches or past results for a specific day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Search or filter parameter. | |
| matchId | No | The unique numeric ID. | |
| teamName | No | Search or filter parameter. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the read operation and the optional filters, but it does not clarify behaviors such as whether a date is effectively required, what happens if no date is provided, or how results are returned. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes the primary scope, optional filters, and a practical use case without any unnecessary words.
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?
The tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description has a notable gap: the schema marks all parameters optional, yet the description says 'for a specific date,' implying date is essential. This inconsistency could confuse an agent. The description otherwise covers what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks clarity on required inputs and output structure.
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%, but the parameter descriptions are generic ('Search or filter parameter'). The tool description adds that matchId and teamName are optional filters, providing some context. However, it does not elaborate on formats or requiredness, keeping the added value modest.
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 fetches soccer fixtures/events for a specific date, with optional filtering by match ID or team name. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a date-specific scope, and explicitly mentions use cases for upcoming matches or past results on a given day.
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 clear context on when to use the tool ('Use this to find scheduled upcoming matches or past results for a specific day'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the date-specific focus makes the intended use clear without needing exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., timelines vs stats vs lineups), but there are several closely related match-stat and season-fixture tools that could be confused, such as get_match_stats vs get_detailed_match_stats vs get_match_details_extended.
All tools use a consistent get_ prefix and snake_case, but naming conventions vary in structure (e.g., get_season_fixtures2 vs get_livescore_season_fixtures) and one tool includes an arbitrary number suffix ('fixtures2'), which is a minor deviation.
With 41 tools, the server is significantly overscoped for typical MCP use. Although the soccer domain is broad, the sheer number of highly granular tools makes it heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers nearly every aspect of soccer data: fixtures, live scores, match details, standings, top scorers, injuries, referees, team streaks, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct team search or player match performance, but the surface is otherwise comprehensive.