Fetch a page of FotMob news items for a specific league using its numeric league ID and optional zero-based offset to browse updates.
FotMob league news. Returns a page of FotMob news items for one league. League ids are discoverable from /fotmob/leagues; start_index is a zero-based offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| league_id | Yes | Numeric FotMob league id | |
| start_index | No | Zero-based news offset; defaults to 0 |
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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a page of news items and that start_index is a zero-based offset, implying pagination. However, it does not mention pagination size, response structure, or any side effects (though it is clearly read-only). It lacks detail on what 'a page' means and whether there are any limits. This partial disclosure merits a 3.
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 description is concise: two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by essential parameter context. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete for calling it: it knows what it does, how to find the league ID, and the offset semantics. However, the absence of an output schema and no mention of pagination size or response fields leaves some uncertainty about what the agent will receive. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not thorough, so a 3 is appropriate.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that league IDs are discoverable from /fotmob/leagues, which is a useful pointer beyond the schema's 'Numeric FotMob league id'. It also clarifies start_index as a zero-based offset, though the schema already says that. This extra guidance on how to obtain valid input earns a 4.
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 states a clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('a page of FotMob news items for one league'). It clearly scopes to league news, distinguishing it from team-level news tools like fotmob_team_news, but does not explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'for one league' and the discoverability of league IDs provides useful context beyond 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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It implies it is for league-specific news, but there is no mention of conditions (e.g., 'use when you need news for a specific league, not team news') or exclusions. The only hint is the mention of 'one league' and the league ID discovery, which is more about parameter setup than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.