Update a fixture's score and status (settle a match)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Fixture ID | |
| court | No | Court ID (optional) | |
| status | Yes | New status: finished, walkover, live, ready, pending | |
| winner | No | Winner entry ID (for walkover) | |
| away_score | No | Away score | |
| home_score | No | Home score | |
| session_token | Yes | The session_token returned by create_tournament |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a small operational nuance (that this call can finalize/settle a match) but does not explain irreversibility, required authorization, or the effect of status transitions beyond what annotations already say.
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?
A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero padding. The parenthetical adds a concrete purpose without bloat.
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 7-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers only the headline action. Required-parameter and conditional requirements (session_token auth, winner only for walkover, valid status values) are left entirely to the schema, leaving the definition minimally sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including required id, status, session_token and the score/winner/court fields) is already documented in the schema. The description mentions score and status but adds no format, valid-transition, or conditional logic (e.g. winner required for walkover) beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (update) plus resource (fixture) and the fields touched (score, status), which cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling get_fixture/list_fixtures. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or clarifying its scope against other mutation tools like resolve_stage.
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 parenthetical '(settle a match)' implies a scenario for use, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as resolve_stage or publish_tournament.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.