get_resultGet the cached final result for ONE finished match by event id.
Returns the final score, red cards and finished time. ``status`` is "found" or "not_found" (the
match isn't in the 30-day cache). Results-only — no odds.
Args:
event_id: event id (e.g. "evt_…") from find_match / list_results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns cached data only (30-day window), status field indicates found/not_found, and it excludes odds. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the result is final only after match completion or what happens for live matches, but the cache limitation is a meaningful addition.
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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by return fields, status semantics, and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section is directly useful.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, the cache limitation, the status field, and the parameter source. It doesn't describe the exact response structure, but there is no output schema and the description lists the main fields. Minor gap: it doesn't specify whether the match must be finished or what happens if the event_id is invalid, but overall it's complete enough for correct 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains event_id is the event id from find_match or list_results, and gives an example format 'evt_…'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property title 'Event Id'.
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 the cached final result for one finished match by event id, and explicitly distinguishes it from results-only data (no odds). It names the resource (cached final result) and the key identifier (event id), making it easy to differentiate from siblings like get_match_odds or list_results.
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 clear context: use it for a single finished match's final result, and it notes the 30-day cache limitation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.
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.