List FotMob matches with public audio commentary and their available language codes. Use this when you need match ids with audio availability; the list is independent of a date-specific fixtures query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the result is a match-id plus language-code list, and the list is not filtered by date. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or result size, so with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines purpose and output, the second defines when to use it and its scoping. Front-loaded with the core verb and no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out in the description. For a no-parameter listing tool whose annotations cover safety, the description covers purpose, trigger, and scope constraint adequately; only result ordering/size details are unaddressed, which is minor.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's statement that the list is date-independent usefully clarifies that no date parameter is implied.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List FotMob matches with public audio commentary and their available language codes.' This clearly separates it from the broader fotmob_matches/fotmob_match siblings by scoping to audio-commentary availability. It does not name the sibling tools directly, but the resource is specific enough to disambiguate.
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?
'Use this when you need match ids with audio availability' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the second clause rules out a competing case ('independent of a date-specific fixtures query'). It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool (e.g. fotmob_matches), so it is clear context rather than a fully explicit when/when-not/alternatives statement.
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.
