Retrieve Flashscore match lineups and formations using an eight-character match id, returning the provider's raw delimited text for published starting lineups.
Flashscore match lineups and formations. Returns the public starting-lineup and formation feed as the provider's raw delimited text. Matches without published lineups return not found.
| 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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is the provider's raw delimited text rather than parsed data, and that missing lineups yield a not-found result. It does not cover rate limits or id failure modes, but for a simple single-parameter read this is sufficient.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then providing return format and not-found behavior. Every sentence adds information with no filler.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will get (raw delimited lineups/formations) and what happens when data is absent. A brief note on how the id relates to other Flashscore tools or an example of the delimited format would make it fully self-contained, but it is nearly complete.
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?
The only parameter, id, is already fully described in the schema as an eight-character Flashscore match id, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies a specific resource (public starting-lineup and formation feed for a Flashscore match) and uses a clear retrieval verb ('Returns'). It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like flashscore_match_stats or flashscore_match_info, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The 'Matches without published lineups return not found' line is a missing-data behavior, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.