Retrieve a single OpenLigaDB match by match_id, including results, goal sequence, teams, location, and source update time for detailed match lookup.
Get one OpenLigaDB match. Returns one match record with its results, goal sequence, teams, location, and source update time. Get match_id from openligadb_matches, openligadb_matchday_matches, or a team-match endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| match_id | Yes | OpenLigaDB match id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it enumerates the payload contents (results, goal sequence, teams, location, source update time), which tells the agent this is a read operation and what data is available afterward. It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid or unknown match_id, which is the main remaining gap for a no-annotation 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and payload, followed by the id-sourcing hint. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to obtain the id. There is no meaningful missing information an agent would need to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the type and name are already documented; the description adds value by explaining the provenance of `match_id` rather than restating it. That provenance is the only semantic an agent could get wrong here, and it is covered.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get one OpenLigaDB match') and immediately clarifies the cardinality ('Returns one match record'), which distinguishes it from list siblings like openligadb_matches and openligadb_matchday_matches. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent where a valid `match_id` comes from, naming three concrete sibling tools (openligadb_matches, openligadb_matchday_matches, team-match endpoint) — real routing guidance. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when you only have a team/league' exclusion, but the single-match scope is clear from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.