Search FotMob leagues, teams, players, and matches by term; returns public search suggestions as structured JSON.
Search FotMob entities. Returns public search suggestions for FotMob leagues, teams, players, and matches. term must contain 1 to 50 characters. Suggestions preserve the upstream JSON shape.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Search phrase, 1 to 50 characters |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: results are 'public search suggestions' and preserve the 'upstream JSON shape,' implying a read-only passthrough. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or the actual structure of the returned suggestions.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the return type, the parameter constraint, and the response shape. Every sentence earns its place.
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 search tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the entity types, the return kind, and the term constraint. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the vague phrase 'preserve the upstream JSON shape' leaves the actual suggestion response structure underspecified, and it does not explain how results might feed into other FotMob tools.
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%, and the schema already documents 'term' as a search phrase of 1 to 50 characters. The description repeats the length constraint but adds no examples, formatting details, or additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FotMob entities'), then enumerates the entity types covered: leagues, teams, players, and matches. It also clarifies that the tool returns search suggestions rather than full entity data, which distinguishes it from sibling fotmob_* tools.
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 implies the tool is for searching FotMob entities and returning suggestions, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like fotmob_league, fotmob_team, or fotmob_player, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.