Retrieve public metadata and image credits for a Flashscore match news article by eight-character ID; article body text is not included.
Flashscore news article metadata. Returns public article metadata and image credits for an article id from a Flashscore match news listing. Article body text is not included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Eight-character Flashscore article 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 burden and does disclose that data is public, returns metadata plus image credits, and explicitly excludes article body text. It does not discuss error behavior, rate limits, response shape, or whether the id must be valid, but for a simple read-only metadata fetch it is reasonably transparent.
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 definition is short, front-loaded with the main return statement, and every substantive sentence adds useful scope. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, which keeps it from being a 5.
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 metadata lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the source of the id, and an important exclusion (no body text). It does not enumerate the metadata fields, but the low complexity and clear purpose make this adequate.
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 schema already fully documents the single id parameter, including the eight-character format, and the description adds the practical detail that the id comes from a Flashscore match news listing. This provenance helps an agent know how to obtain a valid value, although the schema alone covers the basic semantics.
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 names a specific resource ('public article metadata and image credits') and a clear verb ('Returns'), scoped to an article id from Flashscore match news listings. The final sentence clarifies what is not included, so an agent can distinguish this from a full-text article tool. The only minor redundancy is the opening clause restating the tool name.
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 text implies the prerequisite: the caller must already have an article id from a Flashscore match news listing. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, so routing relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.