List Flashscore's 40 public score-navigation sports (including moto racing and the four winter-sports disciplines) with current event and competition counts. Use the returned keys as the sport input of flashscore_scores and flashscore_competitions.
| 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (40 sports, moto racing, four winter disciplines, current event and competition counts), but discloses nothing about caching, freshness, or ordering behavior.
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 sentences with zero filler: the first defines scope and content, the second defines the contract with sibling tools. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.
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 enumerate return fields, and it already characterizes what comes back (sports plus event/competition counts) and what to do with the keys. For a zero-param enumerator with annotations and an output schema, nothing material is missing.
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 the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics for the description to clarify, and the description correctly focuses on output meaning instead.
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 ("List") and resource ("Flashscore's 40 public score-navigation sports"), enumerates the exact size and unusual inclusions, and names the sibling tools that consume its output. An agent can distinguish it from flashscore_scores and flashscore_competitions 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence gives explicit downstream usage – feed the returned keys into flashscore_scores and flashscore_competitions – which effectively tells the agent when this tool is the right starting point. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. versus flashscore_navigation).
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.
