Retrieves a slice of the league table showing the position context of the two teams involved in 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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the dependency on a valid matchId from specific event endpoints, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe return format or potential edge cases. It provides some context but not rich behavioral detail.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key dependency. It lacks an explicit output description, but given the tool's narrow scope and the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. A minor gap is not explaining what 'slice' means in terms of table columns, but this is not critical.
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 provides minimal description for matchId ('The unique numeric ID.'). The description adds significant semantic value by specifying that the ID must be obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents, giving the agent crucial sourcing information beyond the schema.
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 a specific action: retrieving a slice of the league table for the two teams in a match. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_season_tables (full table) and get_match_details (match info). The purpose is unambiguous and uses a specific verb+resource construction.
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 a clear usage context: it requires a matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents, which indicates when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the prerequisite and match-specific nature provide sufficient guidance.
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.