List live Sportskeeda football events and, for one event slug, every matchday by following the site's round links. Use this before requesting fixtures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | No |
| 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 useful behavior (it expands matchdays by following the site's round links and behaves differently with/without a slug), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or freshness beyond 'live'.
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 dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the call-ordering directive at the end. Nothing is wasted, though the opening sentence crams scope and mechanism into one clause.
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-shape explanation is not required, and the description covers both operating modes. However, for a tool whose whole purpose is to feed downstream fixture calls, it omits how many events are returned and whether the slug is required, leaving gaps for an agent to discover.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'event' property is undocumented, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter is an event slug and that supplying it switches to per-event matchday listing, but gives no format or example, and never confirms the parameter is optional for the listing mode.
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 verb (list) plus resource (live Sportskeeda football events / matchdays) and explains the two modes: bare listing vs. per-slug matchday expansion. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like sportskeeda_football_data or the event_calendar options tools, 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?
The closing sentence 'Use this before requesting fixtures' gives a concrete ordering/call-sequence directive, which is exactly what an agent needs for a resolver/options tool. It names no alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context without full when-not coverage.
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.
