match_infoGet full information and scorecard for a single cricket match (Test/ODI/T20) by its match ID. Returns teams, venue, innings scores, toss, and winner. Get the id from current_matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Match ID, as returned by current_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 / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key",
+ "id": "1234567"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds what the tool returns (teams, venue, innings scores, toss, winner), providing some behavioral context. It does not discuss auth requirements or rate limits beyond the schema, but it is consistent with annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence 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?
Given the low complexity of the tool (simple info retrieval with no output schema), the description covers the essential return fields and how to get the id. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the 'id' parameter ('Get the id from current_matches'), which goes beyond the schema. However, the _apiKey parameter description is identical in both, so no extra insight. Overall, a useful usage hint elevates the score.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full information and scorecard for a single cricket match', and specifies supported formats (Test/ODI/T20). It also differentiates from sibling tools by indicating how to obtain the id (from current_matches), making its purpose distinct.
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 for when to use the tool ('Get the id from current_matches') implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like match_scores, which slightly reduces guidance completeness.
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.