current_matchesList current and recent cricket matches (Test/ODI/T20) with live scores, teams, venue, and status. Use this for "what cricket matches are live/on right now". Returns match IDs usable with match_info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0). Each page returns up to 25 matches. | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own CricAPI key for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key"
- },
- {
- "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key",
- "offset": 25
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {},
+ {
+ "offset": 25
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key",
+ "offset": 25
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about returned fields and match IDs usable with match_info, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or data freshness. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a usage example and a link to match_info. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has no required parameters and no output schema, but the description covers what it returns (live scores, teams, venue, status) and how to use the result with match_info. Pagination is left to the schema, which is acceptable. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool.
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 offset and _apiKey are fully documented. The description does not add extra meaning to either parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 and resource, 'List current and recent cricket matches', and specifies formats and returned fields. It references match_info as the follow-up tool but does not explicitly contrast with sibling match_scores, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.
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 includes an explicit use case in quotes: 'Use this for "what cricket matches are live/on right now"'. It gives clear context but does not state exclusions or alternatives beyond match_info, so it is more than implied but not exhaustive.
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.