Skip to main content
Glama

sofascore_team_players

Read-only

Fetch full squad player records from SofaScore for one team. Use sofascore_team for team metadata, sofascore_team_events for its schedule, or sofascore_event_lineups for one match's lineup.

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_team_players"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRequired. Numeric SofaScore team id, e.g. 2817.

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 only the data-scope hint that the result is the 'full squad' (as opposed to a filtered subset); it says nothing about freshness, pagination, or whether the squad is current-season only. Useful but thin against an annotation-covered operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is stated first and the disambiguation follows, which is the correct front-loading for an agent deciding between siblings.

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, return values need not be explained, and the routing to alternatives is complete. The only gap is whether the squad includes non-playing staff or historical players, a minor ambiguity for a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema with type and example (2817). The description only reinforces 'for one team' and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Fetch), resource (full squad player records), source (SofaScore) and scope (one team), which is enough to distinguish it from every nearby sibling without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes the agent to three alternatives by name and by purpose: sofascore_team for metadata, sofascore_team_events for the schedule, sofascore_event_lineups for a single match. That is a clear when-to-use-this-instead statement.

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.