Skip to main content
Glama

sofascore_player

Read-only

Returns one player's bio (position, height, market value, current team) from SofaScore's credential-free public JSON. id: Required. Numeric SofaScore player id, e.g. 855833. Use sofascore_search to retrieve sofaScore universal search.

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": "sofascore_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRequired. Numeric SofaScore player id, e.g. 855833.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 context beyond that: the data comes from 'credential-free public JSON', telling the agent no auth is required. It omits rate-limit or failure behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return payload before the parameter and sibling guidance. It is efficient, though the 'id: Required' clause mildly duplicates the schema declaration.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope, id format, and the search alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call this single-parameter lookup correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%; the id parameter, its required status, and the example value are all documented in the schema. The description restates that same id guidance, adding no syntax or format detail 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.

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns one player's bio') and enumerates the fields returned (position, height, market value, current team). It also names the sibling sofascore_search, letting an agent distinguish this detail fetch from a search call 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to sofascore_search for finding the id, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of stating exclusions or when-not-to-use, but the sibling pointer is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.