SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

ESPN soccer scoreboard for one league and date: each match

dev_espn_soccer_scoreboard

Read-only

ESPN soccer scoreboard for one league and date: each match with home and away team, score, status (scheduled, live, full time) and stadium, from ESPN's public site JSON. Default league is the English Premier League (eng.1); times are UTC. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_espn_mlb_scoreboard when you need ESPN MLB scoreboard for one date: every game with away; dev_espn_nba_scoreboard when you need ESPN NBA scoreboard for one date: every game with away. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dev_espn_soccer_scoreboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	Date YYYY-MM-DD (default: yesterday UTC)
`league`	No	ESPN league code, e.g. eng.1, esp.1, ger.1, ita.1, fra.1, uefa.champions (default eng.1)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`count`	No
`league`	No
`source`	No
`matches`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`league_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data source (ESPN public site JSON), UTC time normalization, the default league, and — most importantly — the x402 payment model at $0.002 per successful call with failed calls uncharged. It does not state rate limits or what an empty board (e.g. future date) looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then alternatives, then cost — a sensible order with little waste. Minor deduction for the awkwardly truncated sibling clauses ('every game with away') and repetition of the MLB/NBA pattern that adds bulk without routing value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so not explaining return shapes is fine, and the description still names the key fields. Defaults, timezone, data source and the payment model are all disclosed. It is close to complete for a two-optional-parameter read tool; the missing piece is guidance on the soccer-specialist alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (date, league) are already documented with formats, defaults and league-code examples. The description only restates the eng.1 default and adds the UTC framing, which is marginal added meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('ESPN soccer scoreboard for one league and date') and enumerates the payload fields returned: home/away team, score, status, stadium. The 'ESPN' and 'soccer' qualifiers distinguish it from the non-soccer siblings (dev_flashscore, dev_sofascore_live) and the other sports scoreboards by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names two related tools, but those are MLB and NBA scoreboards — different sports, so the routing value is trivial and no agent would confuse them. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over the genuinely competing soccer siblings on the server (dev_sofascore_live, dev_flashscore, dev_fbref, dev_football_data_couk). The one-league-one-date scope implies usage but nothing is stated explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?