Lists every recorded match between two OpenLigaDB team IDs, so you can review a head-to-head history. Find team IDs first with openligadb_teams.
List matches between two teams. Returns every recorded match between two OpenLigaDB team ids. Discover team ids through openligadb_teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id_1 | Yes | First OpenLigaDB team id | |
| team_id_2 | Yes | Second OpenLigaDB team id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns every recorded match' usefully signals an unbounded historical result set with no date filtering, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume, which matters for a potentially large list.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed immediately by the prerequisite for getting valid ids. No filler.
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 two-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and id discovery, which is nearly everything needed. The remaining gap is result ordering/pagination, which is 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented as OpenLigaDB team ids. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or symmetry details (e.g. whether id order matters), so it lands at the baseline.
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 (list matches) and pins down the scope to matches between exactly two team ids, which separates it from the single-team siblings like openligadb_matches_by_team_id. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
It provides one genuinely useful piece of routing guidance: obtain team ids via `openligadb_teams`. However it never says when to prefer this over the many other OpenLigaDB match tools (single-team matches, league matches, last/next team match), so the agent must infer the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.