Fetch a SofaScore team's identity, manager, venue, and primary competition by numeric team ID from its public JSON.
SofaScore team detail. Returns one team's detail (identity, manager, venue, primary competition) from SofaScore's credential-free public JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric SofaScore team id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It notes 'credential-free public JSON' implying read-only and open access, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or potential side effects. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Single sentence, 20 words, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words, efficient and clear.
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?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It lists the main fields, sufficient for a single entity retrieval tool.
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% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Numeric SofaScore team id'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.
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 the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'one team's detail', listing specific fields like identity, manager, venue, and primary competition. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on core team detail rather than events or players, though not explicitly compared.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sofascore_search or sofascore_team_events. The description only mentions it's credential-free, but does not help an agent decide between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.