SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Flashscore match list for one sport and day: every match

dev_flashscore

Read-only

Flashscore match list for one sport and day (7 days back to 7 ahead): every match with Flashscore ID, competition (country: league), start time, home/away team, current or final score and state (scheduled, live with period, finished, after extra time/penalties, postponed, cancelled). Football, tennis, basketball, hockey, American football, baseball, handball, volleyball. Read from the feed the Flashscore web page loads. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_tennisexplorer when you need TennisExplorer ATP/WTA match results for one day; dev_covers when you need sportsbook odds from Covers.com odds screens: every listed. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sport": "<sport>"
    },
    "name": "dev_flashscore"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`day`	No	Day offset from today (UTC): -7 to 7 (default 0)
`team`	No	Only matches with a team name containing this text
`limit`	No	Matches, 1 to 200 (default 50)
`sport`	Yes	football, tennis, basketball, hockey, american-football, baseball, handball, volleyball
`league`	No	Only competitions whose name contains this text, e.g. 'ENGLAND: Premier League'
`status`	No	all (default), live, finished or scheduled

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`day`	No
`sport`	No
`source`	No
`status`	No
`matches`	No
`results`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the data source is the same feed the Flashscore web page loads, and each successful call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 (Base, Solana, or Arc) with failed calls uncharged. Paid-call mechanics and billing scope are exactly the sort of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

The core scope and returned fields are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the sibling routing and pricing. The parenthetical sport enumeration duplicates the schema's sport description and costs some space, but the rest of the text is dense and purposeful with no filler sentences.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, open-world feed reader with a full output schema and full input-schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: domain, source, fields returned, state vocabulary, time window, sibling alternatives, and cost/billing behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the day range, the supported sports list, and the state values, all of which the schema already documents with descriptions and examples, so it adds little new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (Flashscore match list), the scope (one sport, one day, -7 to +7), and enumerates the exact fields returned: Flashscore ID, competition with country, start time, home/away, score, and a detailed state enumeration. It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from dev_tennisexplorer, dev_covers, and other scoreboard tools without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit routing: dev_tennisexplorer for TennisExplorer ATP/WTA daily results, dev_covers for sportsbook odds. The 7-day-back-to-7-ahead window implicitly excludes historical queries. What is missing is a direct statement of when NOT to use this tool relative to the very similar dev_sofascore_live or the many dev_espn_* scoreboards on the same server.

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?