Retrieves historical form data (recent W/D/L records) for both competing teams going into the match. [CRITICAL]: Requires a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matchId | Yes | The unique numeric ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the requirement for a valid matchId and the nature of data (recent W/D/L records), which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, output format, or possible failure cases, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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 sentences: the first defines the purpose clearly, the second adds a critical usage note. No redundant wording or repetition of schema details. Every word 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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, this description is fairly complete: it states what data is returned (form records for both teams) and the critical input requirement. It could elaborate on the structure of the form data (e.g., number of matches), but overall it is sufficient for 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 coverage is 100% (matchId described as unique numeric ID), but the description adds extra context by stating that matchId must come from getEvents or getLiveEvents, which helps the agent source the parameter correctly. This goes beyond the schema description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves'), identifies the resource ('historical form data'), and scopes it precisely ('for both competing teams going into the match'), distinguishing it from sibling team- or season-level form 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?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool (pre-match, both teams) and provides a critical prerequisite (valid matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.