Retrieve historical head-to-head win/draw records and manager results for a SofaScore match using its event ID.
SofaScore event head-to-head. Returns the historical head-to-head win/draw record between a match's two teams (and managers, when available) from SofaScore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric SofaScore event (match) id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned data (win/draw record, managers when available) and implies a read-only operation via 'Returns', but does not mention rate limits, auth needs, or whether the operation has side effects.
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 front-loaded and appropriately sized. The opening sentence 'SofaScore event head-to-head.' slightly restates the tool name, but the rest is efficient and every sentence 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?
For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (historical head-to-head win/draw record, including managers when available). It could specify the shape of the record more precisely, but it is largely complete.
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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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: 'Returns the historical head-to-head win/draw record between a match's two teams (and managers, when available)'. This clearly distinguishes it from other SofaScore event tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer that it should be called when a head-to-head record is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.