match_scoresGet a lightweight feed of live cricket scores across current matches. Returns each match as a compact "team1 vs team2" with running scores and status. Best for quick live cricket score checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _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"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {}
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the compact return format, the 'live' nature of the feed, and that it covers current matches only. It does not cover pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the core behavior is transparent enough.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives the output format, and the third gives the recommended use case. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.
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 no-required-parameter, read-only, lightweight feed tool, the description is largely complete. It explains what the caller gets, when to use it, and that no authentication parameters are needed beyond an optional API key. It does not detail the exact JSON structure since there is no output schema, but the compact summary is sufficient for selecting and invoking the 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?
The single optional parameter is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, explaining it is a CricAPI key for higher limits. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the schema carries the burden. This meets the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific action ('Get a lightweight feed of live cricket scores across current matches') and clarifies the output shape ('team1 vs team2' with running scores and status). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool current_matches, which likely serves a similar purpose.
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?
'Best for quick live cricket score checks' gives a clear use case and implies this is not for deep match analysis or historical data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or identify alternative tools such as match_info or current_matches.
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.