esoccer-battle-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Player Form

player_form

Read-only

Compare a player's recent N-match form (W/D/L, goals, BTTS) with the prior N matches to identify trends and better assess upcoming performance.

Instructions

Recent form of a player: the last N matches (W/D/L, goals scored/conceded, total goals, BTTS) compared with the N matches before them, plus the last N match rows.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "player": "<player>"
    },
    "name": "player_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`era`	No	'current' (default), 'all', or an era id such as 'FC26'	current
`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
`last_n`	No	Window size: the last N matches vs the N before them
`player`	Yes	Player nickname
`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
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the comparison mechanic (last N vs the N before) and the exact metric set, but says nothing about edge cases — what happens with fewer than 2N matches of history, or an unknown nickname — which matters for a comparative tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the core purpose and parenthetically enumerating outputs. Dense but readable; the nested parentheses make it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description gives the shape of the analysis well. For a tool with 12 filtering parameters and a comparative windowing mechanic, however, it omits how filters affect the windows and what the caller gets when history is insufficient — gaps an agent would hit immediately.

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%, so every one of the 12 parameters is already documented, including last_n's default of 20 and the era/venue/format/time-window semantics. The description restates last_n's meaning but adds nothing about how the other filters interact with the comparison windows or whether filtering shrinks the comparison baseline.

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 resource and verb-like operation: 'recent form of a player', and enumerates the metrics computed (W/D/L, goals scored/conceded, total goals, BTTS) plus the comparative structure and the raw match rows. This is clear enough to separate it from query_matches or export_matches, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'recent form' — an agent can infer this is the summarization tool rather than the raw-listing one, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as player_h2h or query_matches. The 12 filter parameters that would drive selection are not discussed at all.

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

Deploy Server