Retrieves the last X amount of completed matches across an entire season, providing a quick snapshot of recent tournament results. [CRITICAL]: Requires a valid seasonId obtained from getConfigTreeMini.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | The maximum number of recent matches to return. | |
| seasonId | Yes | The unique numeric ID of the season. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by specifying 'completed matches' and 'across an entire season,' but omits operational details like ordering, default behavior when limit is omitted, or response content. This is a minimal but not rich disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the critical prerequisite is clearly flagged. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key dependency, but leaves the optional 'limit' behavior underspecified (e.g., what happens if omitted). The absence of annotations and output schema raises the need for more operational detail, making this minimally adequate rather than complete.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'limit' corresponds to 'X' in 'last X amount' and by explaining the provenance and necessity of seasonId through the getConfigTreeMini reference, which goes beyond the schema's field names.
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 states a specific action (retrieves last X completed matches) and resource (entire season), clearly differentiating it from team-specific 'last X' siblings like get_team_last_x. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.
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?
It provides a clear prerequisite: the seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, indicated by the [CRITICAL] tag. This tells the agent when it can use the tool (after calling getConfigTreeMini), but it does not discuss when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusion cases, so it's clear context without explicit when-not.
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.