Fetch trending football search suggestions grouped by players, teams, leagues, and entities to reveal what users are searching for.
FotMob trending search suggestions. Returns FotMob's current grouped trending suggestions for all entities, players, teams, and leagues. The feed is dynamic and may vary by the upstream's inferred region; no region or category parameter is exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the feed is dynamic, region-dependent, and grouped across entities/players/teams/leagues, plus the absence of any filtering parameter. However, it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, result count, or pagination/return shape, which are material gaps for a fully un-annotated tool.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by scope and the region caveat. Every sentence adds information; no filler or restatement of the name beyond the opening identification.
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-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the feed contains and its variability, which is most of what an agent needs to decide to call it. It is only short of return-format or volume details, which are minor here.
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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description additionally explains that no region or category parameter is exposed, which correctly sets the agent's expectation that no query refinement is possible.
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?
States a clear verb (returns) and resource (FotMob's current grouped trending suggestions) and enumerates what the suggestions cover (entities, players, teams, leagues). It is specific enough to distinguish from tactical fotmob tools like fotmob_search or fotmob_player, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the 'trending searches' framing; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative such as fotmob_search or fotmob_news is named. The note that the feed is dynamic and region-inferred gives some expectation-setting context but does not route the agent between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.