Retrieves the full league standings and point tables for a specific season. [CRITICAL]: Requires a valid seasonId obtained from getConfigTreeMini.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seasonId | Yes | The unique numeric ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only adds the prerequisite for seasonId. It does not disclose return format, error handling, or any side effects. Since it's a read operation, 'Retrieves' implies safety, but other behavioral context is missing.
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 concise sentences: first states the core purpose, second highlights a critical dependency. No redundancy, well front-loaded.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key constraint. However, it could briefly mention what the response contains or differentiate from similar table tools, but the current level is sufficient for simple invocation.
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 single parameter, and the description adds value by specifying that the seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, giving the agent a reliable source for a valid value.
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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'full league standings and point tables' for a specific season, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_season_form_table or get_match_table_slice.
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 prerequisite (seasonId from getConfigTreeMini) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of alternative table-related tools.
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.