Retrieves the complete sequential timeline of events (goals, cards, substitutions) that occurred during 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 the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a key prerequisite (valid matchId from specific tools) and implies a read-only retrieval action via 'Retrieves'. However, it does not disclose return format, potential errors, or pagination. The critical note provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.
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 sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second gives a critical usage note. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 getter, the description is sufficient: it names the event types returned, specifies the match context, and gives a critical prerequisite. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on return structure could help, but the core functionality is clear and complete for an agent to select and call the tool.
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 covers 100% of the parameter (matchId) but only describes it as 'unique numeric ID'. The description adds meaningful context by stating that the matchId must come from getEvents or getLiveEvents, guiding the agent on where to source the value. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 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') and a clear resource ('complete sequential timeline of events (goals, cards, substitutions) that occurred during the match'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_timeline_delta by emphasizing 'complete sequential' and from get_events by specifying the timeline nature.
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 '[CRITICAL]' note provides a clear prerequisite: a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents. This gives context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternative timeline tools or exclusions. The prerequisite is actionable and prevents misuse.
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.