Returns the current public live-score feed, including live, upcoming, and recently completed match cards with their canonical scorecard URLs. Use cricinfo_scores to get current Cricinfo match scores.
| 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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the feed is 'public' and spans live/upcoming/recently completed states, but says nothing about freshness, update cadence, or result limits for a 'live' feed.
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 tight sentences, with the description of returned content front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer. 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-value formatting need not be explained, and with no parameters there are no semantic gaps to fill. The description is essentially complete for such a simple, well-annotated tool.
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 per calibration the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.
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 resource ('current public live-score feed'), and enumerates the exact content delivered: live, upcoming, and recently completed match cards plus canonical scorecard URLs. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling cricinfo_scores.
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?
Explicitly points to the alternative ('Use cricinfo_scores to get current Cricinfo match scores'), giving the agent a routing option. It lacks an explicit statement of when this feed is preferable over cricinfo_scores, but the context is implied.
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.
