Fetch a match's starting XI and substitutes for both sides with formation from SofaScore. Returns 404 when lineups are unavailable.
SofaScore event lineups. Returns one match's starting XI and substitutes per side, with formation. Returns 404 when SofaScore has no lineups for the match. A missing-lineup result may be reused for up to two minutes before checking again.
| 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 burden and delivers uncommon operational detail: it states the 404-on-missing-lineups error semantics and the ~2-minute caching behavior for empty results. That is genuinely useful beyond anything structured data provides. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether lineups reflect pre-match or live updates, so it is not exhaustive.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then error and cache behavior. The opening 'SofaScore event lineups.' lightly restates the name but is not wasteful; everything else 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return shape (starting XI + substitutes per side + formation) and the failure/caching semantics. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the response includes player ids or positions, but nothing critical is missing.
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% and the sole 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as a 'Numeric SofaScore event (match) id.' The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup hints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema is doing the work.
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 and scope: 'Returns one match's starting XI and substitutes per side, with formation.' An agent can tell this is a single-match lineup lookup. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as sofascore_event (which commonly embeds lineups) or sofascore_event_managers, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — the tool is for fetching one match's lineup. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use sofascore_event otherwise' guidance and no noted prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear gap for a namespace crowded with overlapping sofascore_event_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.