Returns the historical head-to-head win/draw record between a match's two teams (and managers, when available) from SofaScore's credential-free public JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. Numeric SofaScore event (match) id, e.g. 14025013. |
| 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 covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the source is a credential-free public JSON (no auth required), plus the note that manager data is only present 'when available'. It says nothing about pagination, limits, or response shape.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and result. No filler or redundancy, though as one long clause it could be marginally tighter.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it adequately conveys what data (win/draw record plus manager data) is produced. Missing only usage routing against sibling event tools.
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% and the schema already documents the single `id` parameter with format and example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Returns) and a precise resource (historical head-to-head win/draw record between a match's two teams and managers). The content is clearly distinct from data-oriented siblings like sofascore_event_statistics or sofascore_event_lineups, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with them.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for head-to-head history given a match id. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as sofascore_event or sofascore_event_statistics.
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.
