find_matchesOpen, organizer-listed matches at a venue (its public board), with spots left and level ranges. Give the venue name; the slug is derived.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venue | Yes | Venue name or its slug, e.g. 'Padel Indoor BCN' or 'padel-indoor-bcn'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: matches are organizer-listed, the board is public, results include spots left and level ranges, and the slug is derived from the venue name.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, states the key output fields, and gives the input convention. It contains no filler and does not repeat what the annotations or schema already say.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return information (open matches, spots left, level ranges) and the input derivation rule. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without obvious gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the venue parameter well. The description adds value by explaining that a venue name is sufficient because the slug is derived, which is not explicit in the schema and helps the agent construct a correct call.
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?
The title and description together identify a specific operation (find) on a specific resource (open, organizer-listed matches at a venue), and the public-board wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_clubs and get_match. The mention of spots left and level ranges further clarifies what kind of match listing this returns.
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 description clearly scopes the tool to a venue's public match board and instructs the user to provide the venue name, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over find_clubs, get_match, or join_match. The usage context is implied rather than stated with exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource or action: about/API key, match creation, club searching, match searching, schedule generation, group retrieval, match retrieval, and joining. Even similar tools like find_matches and get_match are separated by clear inputs and purposes.
Nearly all tools follow the verb_noun pattern: create_match, find_clubs, find_matches, generate_schedule, get_group, get_match, join_match, create_api_key. The only deviation is about_kicksmash, which uses a preposition-style prefix instead of a verb.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a padel-focused assistant. Each tool serves a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflows—discovering clubs/matches, creating matches, joining matches, retrieving match/group info, and generating schedules—are well covered. Update/cancel/leave operations are absent, but the organizer manageUrl suggests those happen outside the MCP surface, so this is a minor gap rather than a dead end.