Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

flashscore_player_transfers

Flashscore player transfer history. Returns a team-sport player's club history, newest first, with date, type such as Loan or Free agent, fee text and the clubs on each side. A player with no recorded transfers returns an empty list.

Instructions

Flashscore player transfer history. Returns a team-sport player's club history, newest first, with date, type such as Loan or Free agent, fee text and the clubs on each side. A player with no recorded transfers returns an empty list. Players of individual sports have no transfers page and return not found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesEight-character Flashscore player id
slugNoOptional player slug; must match the id when supplied

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.12

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses sort order (newest first), the returned fields (date, type such as Loan/Free agent, fee text, both clubs), and two failure modes. It omits anything about permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup the behavioral disclosure is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by return shape and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place, with only minor verbosity in the field enumeration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description adequately describes the return contents and the two edge cases an agent must handle. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only gap being the absence of explicit usage routing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 both the required id and optional slug. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Flashscore player transfer history') and immediately scopes it as a team-sport player's club history, which cleanly separates it from the sibling flashscore_team_transfers. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the purpose (fetch a player's transfer history), and the description helpfully notes two boundary conditions (empty list for no transfers, not-found for individual sports). However it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any preconditions, so guidance is only inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools