esoccer-battle-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Player H2H

player_h2h

Read-only

Compare two players' head-to-head history, including wins/draws/losses, goal averages, over/under rates, both-teams-to-score, venue/session splits, and last 10 meetings.

Instructions

Head-to-head record of two players against each other: wins/draws/losses, goal averages, over/under rate per line, both-teams-to-score, split by venue and session, last 10 meetings.

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_a": "<player_a>",
      "player_b": "<player_b>"
    },
    "name": "player_h2h"
  }
}

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	Use the most recent N meetings
`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
`player_a`	Yes	First player nickname
`player_b`	Yes	Second player nickname
`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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description needn't repeat it. The description adds value by disclosing which aggregates are produced (per-line over/under, venue and session splits), which is genuine behavioral insight beyond the schema. It stops short of noting pagination, result-set size, or what happens when no meetings exist between the players.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishes purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of outputs — no filler verbs or apology phrasing. The colon-separated metric list is dense but scannable, though it never returns to usage context, making it read more like an output spec than a full tool definition.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description needn't restate types. However, for a tool with 13 parameters and overlapping siblings (team_h2h, player_form), the absence of any disambiguation or filter-interaction guidance leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 the schema fully documents all 13 parameters including era, ven, turnus, and session; the description is not obligated to duplicate this. It only loosely gestures at filters by saying results are 'split by venue and session', adding no syntax or interaction semantics (e.g. how last_n interacts with last_days/since). Baseline 3.

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 names the specific resource (head-to-head record of two players) and enumerates the exact metrics computed (W/D/L, goal averages, over/under per line, BTTS, venue/session splits, last 10 meetings). An agent can tell immediately this is a two-player H2H stats tool rather than a general match query. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closest siblings player_form or team_h2h.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives, despite siblings player_form and team_h2h overlapping conceptually. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the two-player comparison tool rather than the single-player or team version.

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

Deploy Server