esoccer-battle-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Data Notes

data_notes

Read-only

Provides context for interpreting esoccer match data—eras, dated events, venue formats, block schedules, and turnus-to-session mappings—so you can analyze multi-day windows correctly.

Instructions

Context needed to interpret the data: eras (game versions), dated events (schedule changes, new leagues, fixed player-team periods), venues with format and current block schedule, and the turnus -> session map. Read this before analysing windows longer than a few days.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "data_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`venue`	No	Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford, Wembley, San Siro, Bernabeu (8 min) or Anfield, Etihad (12 min)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that this is interpretive metadata, including current schedules and dated events, rather than match data itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The content categories are front-loaded and the usage condition closes the description efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single optional parameter, existing annotations and output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by indicating whether omitting venue returns all reference data, but the core usage is covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the venue parameter already includes examples and duration details. The description does not add further meaning about how the optional venue filter behaves when omitted, so the schema carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates the specific reference content returned: eras, dated events, venue details and a turnus-to-session map. This distinguishes it from match-query siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear triggering condition: read this before analysing windows longer than a few days. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage context is explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server