Retrieve the season list for a SofaScore competition using its numeric ID, then use any returned season ID for standings and round-event queries.
SofaScore competition seasons. Returns the season list for a competition. Use a returned season id with the standings and round-events endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric SofaScore unique-tournament (competition) 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms the tool returns a list of seasons, which is useful, but doesn't disclose pagination, whether all seasons are returned, ordering, or any rate-limit behavior for a read-only endpoint.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then return value, then downstream usage. Every sentence 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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and chaining. It would be more complete with a note on ordering or whether the list is exhaustive, but nothing essential 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 single id parameter is well documented as a 'Numeric SofaScore unique-tournament (competition) id'. The description reinforces that the id is a competition id, matching the schema, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the season list for a competition. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it doesn't differentiate itself from related season-oriented siblings like sofascore_stage_seasons or sofascore_team_statistics_seasons.
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 explicitly states a next-step workflow: 'Use a returned season id with the standings and round-events endpoints,' which are actual siblings (sofascore_standings, sofascore_round_events). It doesn't say when not to use this tool or how to obtain the competition id, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.