Access FotMob's full public league directory, grouped into popular, international, and country collections, to obtain league IDs for other FotMob endpoints.
FotMob competition directory. Returns FotMob's full public league directory grouped into popular, international, and country collections. Use league ids with other FotMob endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It discloses that the output is a public directory grouped into popular, international, and country collections, but it doesn't describe response structure, ordering, rate limits, or freshness. The read-only nature is evident but not explicitly stated.
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 concise sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, grouping details follow, and the downstream usage note earns its place without padding.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema directory tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, how it is organized, and how to use the result. A bit more detail on the shape of entries or whether any pagination exists would make it fully 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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by describing the tool as returning the full directory with no filtering inputs, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('FotMob's full public league directory'), with clear grouping details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fotmob_league, which presumably targets a single league.
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 description gives clear downstream usage guidance: 'Use league ids with other FotMob endpoints.' It implies this is the tool to call when you need a league directory or IDs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative FotMob tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.