Fetch cricket and football fixtures or results from Sportskeeda public match cards and schedule tables; return no_matches when a widget has no games.
Get Sportskeeda fixtures and results. Parses public cricket and football match cards or sport-specific schedule tables. A genuine no-matches widget returns status no_matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Sportskeeda schedule path without host |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors: that it parses either match cards or schedule tables, and that a genuine empty widget returns status 'no_matches'. However it says nothing about pagination, failure modes for non-schedule slugs, or whether the slug must be a public path.
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 core purpose and ending on the useful no_matches edge case. No filler, though the middle parsing sentence is mild implementation detail.
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?
Adequate for a one-parameter scraping tool with no output schema: purpose and the no_matches sentinel are covered. But the return shape (fixtures vs results, competition grouping) is only hinted at, leaving some ambiguity about what an agent will actually receive.
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%, so the single slug parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or example for the slug beyond 'path without host'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') plus resource ('Sportskeeda fixtures and results'), and clarifies the two underlying sources (match cards vs sport-specific schedule tables). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like sportskeeda_standings or sportskeeda_football_data.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for fixtures/results versus the many sibling schedule and stats tools. The parsing note implies context but is not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.