Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

fussballde_match_comparison

Compare both teams in a FUSSBALL.DE match using head-to-head history, prior meetings and results, or current season standings, form, goals, top scorers and cards.

Instructions

Compare the two teams of a FUSSBALL.DE match. Returns a pre-match comparison for one match: history is the all-time head-to-head record (duels, wins, draws, defeats, goals), meetings lists the other fixtures and results between the two teams, and season compares both teams' current standing, points, goals, form, top scorer and cards.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoComparison view, default history
match_idYesMatch id from fussballde-matchday or fussballde-match-plan

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.16

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work by spelling out what each view returns (head-to-head duels/wins/draws/defeats/goals, other meetings, season standing/points/form/top scorer/cards). It stops short of stating any limits such as whether it works for finished matches or requires an in-season context.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, and no filler. The second sentence is long but each clause maps to a distinct view and earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what matters: what it does and what each view returns. Minor gaps remain around input prerequisites and failure behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the `view` enum values actually mean in terms of returned data, which the terse schema description ('Comparison view, default history') does not. match_id sourcing is already fully covered by the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Compare the two teams of a FUSSBALL.DE match') and clarifies that it returns a pre-match comparison for a single match. This is enough to distinguish it from detailed match tools like fussballde_match, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

'Pre-match comparison for one match' implies the use case (pre-match analysis), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus fussballde_match, fussballde_match_plan or fussballde_table, and no exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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