Fetch one match's starting XI, substitutes, and formations per side from SofaScore public JSON by numeric event ID; returns 404 when no lineups exist.
SofaScore event lineups. Returns one match's starting XI and substitutes per side, with formation, from SofaScore's credential-free public JSON. Returns 404 when SofaScore has no lineups for the match.
| 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 full burden. It discloses credential-free access and 404 on missing lineups, which is helpful, but omits potential rate limits, response structure, or other behavioral traits.
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 sentences: the first clearly states purpose and output, the second notes the 404 error case. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and error case, but could elaborate on output structure (e.g., player details, formation format) to improve completeness.
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 schema already documents the id parameter. The description adds that id is 'Numeric SofaScore event (match) id', but this adds minimal value beyond the schema description.
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 explicitly states the tool returns 'starting XI and substitutes per side, with formation' for one match, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like sofascore_event or sofascore_event_statistics.
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?
The description implies use for retrieving lineups via name, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sofascore_event for general match info. No when-not or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.