Gets baseline metadata for a match including stadium, referee, team names, and start time. Crucial for understanding the context of a 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'gets' and the mention of 'metadata' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or address error behaviors (e.g., what happens with an invalid matchId). There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond the obvious safe-read implication.
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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical prerequisite. Every sentence provides essential information without any filler or redundancy, making it optimally concise for its scope.
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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, key return fields, and a critical dependency. It does not explain return formatting or error scenarios, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Slightly more detail on when to prefer this over get_match_details would have raised the score.
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?
The schema defines matchId as 'The unique numeric ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable guidance beyond the schema by stating that the required matchId must be 'obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents.' This provides provenance information that helps the agent correctly source the parameter, exceeding the baseline for full schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool 'Gets baseline metadata for a match' and enumerates the fields (stadium, referee, team names, start time), which explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_match_details or get_match_situations. The verb 'gets' is specific and the resource is well-defined.
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 a strong prerequisite ('Requires a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents') and notes it is 'crucial for understanding the context of a match.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_match_details, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is implied but not fully articulated.
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.