Fetch a SofaScore match's goal, card, substitution, and period timeline incidents as structured JSON by numeric event ID.
SofaScore event incidents. Returns one match's goal, card, substitution, and period timeline from SofaScore. An empty incidents list is a valid response before kickoff.
| 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 provided, the description carries the burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: an empty `incidents` list is valid before kickoff, which prevents an agent from misreading it as a failure. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or refresh behavior, so the disclosure is partial.
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, no filler, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded. The opening fragment 'SofaScore event incidents' is mildly redundant with the tool name but functions as an identifier.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey the payload, and it does list the incident categories plus the pre-kickoff empty case. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; pagination or ordering behavior is unstated but not critical 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% with a single `id` parameter already documented as the numeric SofaScore event id. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 resource (one match's incidents) and enumerates the returned content types (goal, card, substitution, period timeline), which clearly separates it from siblings like sofascore_event_statistics or sofascore_event_lineups. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no statement of when to choose this tool over the many other sofascore_event_* tools. Usage is only implied by the resource name. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.