SofaScore team upcoming or recent fixtures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. Numeric SofaScore team id, e.g. 2817. | |
| page | No | Optional. Zero-based page number. Defaults to 0 (most recent page). | |
| direction | Yes | Required. One of next, last. |
| 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that and the schema — no result volume, pagination behavior, or ordering semantics that the annotations and 'direction' parameter don't already imply.
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 with zero filler, well-sized for a simple lookup. Its terseness reflects under-specification rather than padding, but structurally it is clean.
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, return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers parameters. What is still missing is any disambiguation from the many fixture-adjacent siblings, leaving the definition minimal but barely adequate.
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 the schema already documents id, page, and direction thoroughly. The description adds no syntax, format, or value examples beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?
The phrase names a specific resource (SofaScore team fixtures) and its scope (upcoming or recent), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It lacks a verb and does not differentiate from siblings like fotmob_team_fixtures, sofascore_team, or sofascore_round_events, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use context, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. In a catalog with fotmob_team_fixtures and other fixture-returning siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
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.
