Fetch a football fixture by its ID, optionally including event timeline and match statistics.
Get one fixture by id, optionally with the event timeline (goals, cards, corners) and match statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language code for team/league names, e.g. en, es, de, ja, zh-cn | |
| fixture_id | Yes | Fixture id | |
| include_stats | No | Include match statistics | |
| include_events | No | Include the event timeline |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context by clarifying that the event timeline includes goals, cards, and corners, but it does not describe response shape, defaults, or behavior when the optional flags are omitted.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core action and the optional extended data efficiently without repeating schema details.
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 simple single-fixture getter with strong annotations and fully documented parameters, the description plus schema are largely sufficient. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail about the response shape would strengthen it, but the return value is reasonably implied by the tool name and optional-inclusion statement.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minor semantic value by explicitly enumerating what the event timeline contains, but it does not add syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.
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 description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one fixture by id'), and the optional content (event timeline and match statistics). It is clear and distinguishes itself from plural fixture-listing tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.
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 phrase 'Get one fixture by id' implies the tool should be used when a single fixture id is known, and the optional flags signal when to include additional data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_fixtures, get_league_fixtures, or get_team_fixtures, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.