Retrieves the historical list of all past champions and winners for a unique tournament across its previous seasons. [CRITICAL]: Requires a valid tournamentId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tournamentId | Yes | The unique numeric ID of the tournament. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is retrieval (read-only) and highlights the need for a valid tournamentId, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or response format. This is minimally adequate for a simple read tool.
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 a single sentence with a bold critical note. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any fluff or redundant 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (list of past champions and winners) and the required input. It lacks details about output structure or edge cases, but is reasonably complete for its simplicity.
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 fully describes tournamentId with a clear description, so coverage is 100%. The description adds the requirement that the ID be valid, which is a minor addition beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource: a historical list of past champions and winners for a unique tournament. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on tournament winners.
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 implies usage when you need past tournament winners, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The critical note about a valid tournamentId is a prerequisite, not usage 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.