Retrieves Flashscore match venue, city, capacity, and broadcast listings from the public match information feed and returns raw delimited text.
Flashscore match venue and broadcast information. Returns the public match information feed, including available venue, city, capacity, and broadcast listings, as the provider's raw delimited text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Eight-character Flashscore match id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does useful work: it flags the output as the provider's raw delimited text rather than a structured object, and labels the feed public. It does not cover failure modes or id validity, but the main behavioral surprise (raw text output) is disclosed.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the key scope ('match venue and broadcast information') is front-loaded and the return format is given in the second sentence. Every clause adds information useful for selecting or invoking the tool.
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-required-parameter read tool, the description states what is returned, which fields to expect, and the raw output format. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though an example of the delimited format or explicit sibling routing would make it stronger.
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% and the sole id parameter is already documented as an eight-character Flashscore match id. The description adds no extra parameter syntax or provenance details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Returns' as the action verb and pins the resource to Flashscore match venue and broadcast information, then enumerates venue, city, capacity, and broadcast listings. This content scope separates it from sibling match endpoints like flashscore_match_stats or flashscore_match_lineups.
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?
It gives a clear selection cue: use when you need a match's venue/city/capacity/broadcast info, and 'public' signals no special access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.