Retrieve a cricket team's match schedule and recent results from its Cricinfo team page. Provide the canonical team URL to get structured fixture data.
Get a Cricinfo team match schedule. Returns a team's recent fixtures and results from its dedicated page. url must be a canonical https://www.cricinfo.com/team/... URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Cricinfo team URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a team's recent fixtures and results from its dedicated page, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, pagination, or what happens with invalid or non-canonical URLs.
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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the canonical URL requirement is stated in a compact final sentence.
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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the input format and the general return content. It is minimally viable, but lacks guidance on how to identify the right team page and does not explain the structure or scope of the returned fixtures/results.
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% since the url parameter is described as a canonical Cricinfo team URL. The description adds the URL path pattern 'https://www.cricinfo.com/team/...' and the word 'must', reinforcing constraint semantics, but it does not substantially go 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Cricinfo team match schedule' and clarifies the output as 'recent fixtures and results'. It is clear enough to distinguish from broader Cricinfo calendar or match tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling tools like cricinfo_team, cricinfo_calendar, or cricinfo_live_matches. The only usage constraint is that the URL must be canonical, which is about input format, not selection among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.