Crawlora MCP

flashscore_match_commentary

Read-only

Fetch Flashscore match text commentary newest first, including the displayed minute, detailed match clock and type when available. Pass the eight-character match id from a Flashscore match link or scores result. Pre-match entries may have no clock. A match without text coverage returns not found. Use flashscore_match_report for the separate editorial recap.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "flashscore_match_commentary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Required. Eight-character Flashscore match id from a public match URL.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses concrete behavior: results are newest-first, pre-match entries may lack a clock, and matches without text coverage fail with not-found. That error path and the optional-field caveat are exactly the things an agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not discuss volume/ordering limits or pagination, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the payload description, then the input contract, then edge cases, then the sibling pointer. Nothing is padding, and each clause carries a distinct fact.

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 annotations covering safety, a 100%-documented schema, and an output schema handling the return shape, the description only needed to add behavior — ordering, missing clock, not-found, and the report sibling — which it does. Slightly more on scope (which sports/matches have text coverage) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'eight-character Flashscore match id from a public match URL'. The description's 'eight-character match id from a Flashscore match link or scores result' mostly restates that, adding only the extra provenance hint of a scores result. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch Flashscore match text commentary') and scopes the payload (minute, detailed clock, type when available). It also explicitly separates itself from flashscore_match_report by calling that tool the 'separate editorial recap', so an agent can pick the right one without opening either schema.

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?

It tells the agent where the required input comes from (a Flashscore match link or a scores result) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (editorial recap). It stops short of stating when *not* to use it beyond the report contrast, such as preferring incidents/stats tools for structured event data.

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

All Crawlora MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.