Skip to main content
Glama

Crawlora MCP

openligadb_team_pair_matches

Read-only

List recorded head-to-head matches for two OpenLigaDB team ids. Discover team ids with openligadb_teams.

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": {
      "team_id_1": "<team_id_1>",
      "team_id_2": "<team_id_2>"
    },
    "name": "openligadb_team_pair_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team_id_1YesRequired first OpenLigaDB team id from openligadb_teams.
team_id_2YesRequired second OpenLigaDB team id from openligadb_teams.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds that matches are 'recorded' and head-to-head, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether future fixtures are included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and a useful prerequisite second. There is no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and read-only annotations, the definition is mostly complete for a simple two-id lookup. It still leaves scope details such as competition/season coverage or result ordering unstated.

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 both required team id parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces their source via openligadb_teams, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: list recorded head-to-head matches for two OpenLigaDB team ids. The two-id scope distinguishes it from single-team match tools, but it does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify how it differs from them.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite by directing the agent to openligadb_teams for team ids. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus other OpenLigaDB match-listing tools or describe exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources