Retrieves the direct head-to-head recent history between two specific teams. [CRITICAL]: Requires valid teamId and opponentId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | The unique numeric ID. | |
| teamId | Yes | The unique numeric ID. | |
| opponentId | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return format, pagination, or any operational constraints beyond input validity, leaving the agent to infer standard read behavior.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical input note. Both sentences earn their place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and required inputs. However, it leaves ambiguity around the meaning of 'recent' and the 'count' parameter, and does not differentiate strongly enough from sibling tools given the lack of usage guidance.
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 descriptions for all parameters are generic ('The unique numeric ID.'), providing no semantic meaning. The description text adds that teamId and opponentId are required, clarifying their role as team identifiers, but the 'count' parameter remains unexplained. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, with the description offering limited added 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 clearly states the tool retrieves direct head-to-head recent history between two specific teams. The verb 'Retrieves' plus the resource 'head-to-head recent history' makes the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like get_team_last_x or get_match_form.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note is that valid teamId and opponentId are required, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline.
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.