esoccer-battle-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export Matches

export_matches

Exports every match matching your filters to a CSV file, oldest first and without a row limit, so you can analyze history in code or a spreadsheet without overwriting existing files.

Instructions

Write every match matching the filters to a CSV file on the user's computer (no row limit), oldest first, for analysis with the user's own code or a spreadsheet. Never overwrites a file.

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": "export_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`era`	No	'current' (default), 'all', or an era id such as 'FC26'	current
`path`	No	Target .csv file or folder; default ~/Downloads/esoccer-battle-exports/
`team`	No	Team name (either side)
`since`	No	First Battle day to include, YYYY-MM-DD
`until`	No	Last Battle day to include, YYYY-MM-DD
`venue`	No	Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford, Wembley, San Siro, Bernabeu (8 min) or Anfield, Etihad (12 min)
`format`	No	Match length
`player`	No	Player nickname (either side)
`turnus`	No	Block number within the Battle day (1-11 for 8 min, 1-8 for Latest/12 min)
`session`	No	Session, derived from the turnus
`time_to`	No	Latest local kick-off time HH:MM
`opponent`	No	Opponent player (with player) or team (with team)
`last_days`	No	Only the last N Battle days (overrides since)
`time_from`	No	Earliest local kick-off time HH:MM (window may wrap midnight)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Never overwrites a file', which explains concretely why a write operation is non-destructive and why repeat calls are not idempotent (a new file each time). It adds detail beyond the annotations but does not cover the resulting response or failure modes, which the output schema partly handles.

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 sentences, no waste, and the most decision-relevant facts (unlimited rows, chronological order, non-overwriting) are front-loaded where an agent will see them first.

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?

For a 14-parameter write tool, the description plus a full-coverage schema, annotations and an output schema cover nearly everything needed. The one residual gap is destination behavior when multiple exports occur, which is only implied by 'never overwrites' and the path parameter's description.

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?

With 14 parameters at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries all filter semantics. The description only adds the aggregate guarantee that all filters are applied with no row limit and rows are emitted oldest first, which is useful but not parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (write) and resource (matches matching the filters) plus the output artifact (CSV on the user's computer). It is clearly distinguishable from the query_matches sibling by being an export-to-file operation, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The clause 'for analysis with the user's own code or a spreadsheet' implies the use case, and '(no row limit)' hints at when to prefer this over the read-only query tool. However, it never states when not to use it or names query_matches as the alternative, leaving the routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server