Extract structured event data from a public LiveScore match page using its URL path after /en/. Returns JSON fields that vary by event and stage.
LiveScore match details. Returns the event data embedded in a public LiveScore match page. Data uses LiveScore's event payload shape; available fields vary by event and stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Five path segments following /en/ in a LiveScore match URL |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the data comes from a public LiveScore page, uses LiveScore's event payload shape, and that fields vary by event and stage. However, it does not disclose error behavior, output format details, or any prerequisites beyond the path parameter.
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 two sentences and largely efficient. The first sentence 'LiveScore match details' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the second sentence provides substantive information about the data source and payload. Overall no meaningful fluff.
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 tool with no output schema, the description offers a reasonable overview: it identifies the source page, payload shape, and field variability. It could be more explicit about how to discover valid paths or what the event payload contains, but the schema covers the path syntax adequately for the low complexity.
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 'path' parameter is already well-documented as 'Five path segments following /en/ in a LiveScore match URL.' The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource: 'LiveScore match details' and 'Returns the event data embedded in a public LiveScore match page.' It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like livescore_match_stats or livescore_live_scores, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never names sibling tools like livescore_match_stats, livescore_team, or livescore_scores, nor does it provide selection criteria. The intended use is only implied by 'match details.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.