Get the complete set of five sports supported by LiveScore's fixtures, providing sport IDs to query scores.
LiveScore supported sports. Returns the complete five-sport set shown in LiveScore's fixture navigation. Use a sport id with /livescore/scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns (the complete five-sport set) and provides context (LiveScore's fixture navigation). For a simple read-only list tool, this is sufficient transparency.
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?
Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. Every word 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?
The description is complete for a tool that simply lists supported sports. It doesn't enumerate the five sports, but that's not required; it tells the agent what it gets and how to use it, which is sufficient.
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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details and correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.
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 clearly states the tool returns the complete five-sport set from LiveScore's fixture navigation. The verb 'Returns' and the explicit 'five-sport set' distinguishes it from sibling tools like livescore_scores or livescore_competition.
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 implicitly tells the agent to first get sports and then use a sport id with /livescore/scorescker. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance to use a sport id with a specific sibling endpoint is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.