Search SofaScore for teams, players, or competitions using a free-text query. Returns matches, or an empty list if none are found.
SofaScore universal search. Searches SofaScore for teams, players, and competitions matching a free-text query. An empty results list is a valid response when nothing matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Free-text search query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — an empty results list is a valid non-error outcome — but omits permissions/auth requirements, pagination, result limits, and result shape, which matters for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded with the tool's identity, and each sentence contributes something (what it searches, which entity types, edge-case behavior). No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter search endpoint with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the domain, the entity types, and the empty-result behavior. It would be fully complete with a note on how to disambiguate from sofascore_search_typed or what the returned records contain.
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% and the single parameter 'q' is already documented as a free-text query, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'matching a free-text query' adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond it.
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 verb (searches) and resource (SofaScore), and names the entity types covered (teams, players, competitions). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling sofascore_search_typed, so an agent must guess which search endpoint to use.
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 word 'universal' hints that this is the broad, untyped entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling sofascore_search_typed. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.