Fetch a team's full squad from SofaScore's public JSON by providing a numeric team ID, returning clean player data for analysis.
SofaScore team players. Returns a team's full squad 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that data comes from a 'credential-free public JSON' API, indicating no authentication required. However, it does not describe the output structure, pagination, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or data completeness. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information and is easy to parse.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the source. However, it could clarify what 'full squad' entails (e.g., active players, all squad members, etc.) 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Numeric SofaScore team id'. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming the parameter's purpose. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.
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 clearly states the tool returns a team's full squad, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('team's full squad'). It distinguishes from siblings like sofascore_player (individual player) and sofascore_team (team info) by focusing on squad retrieval. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from other team-related tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.