futpicks-mcp

List Evaluable Matches

flab_evaluate_matches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve scheduled football matches for the next three days that are eligible for on-demand evaluation. Use the returned match IDs to access match analysis and lineup predictions.

Instructions

List scheduled matches (next ~3 days) available for on-demand evaluation. Use the returned matchId with flab_evaluate_match. Requires Pro token.

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": "flab_evaluate_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the ~3-day lookahead window, the fact that matches are evaluation-eligible, and the Pro token requirement. It handles the burden well for a simple read-only list tool.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence provides the most actionable next step (pairing with flab_evaluate_match) plus the auth requirement.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a no-parameter list operation, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned (matches with matchId), the time window, the prerequisite token, and how to use the result. The readOnly/idempotent annotations further reassure the agent that this is a safe call. Nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter details. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is nothing for the description to add.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb 'List' with a precise resource: scheduled matches in the next ~3 days that are available for on-demand evaluation. The phrase 'available for on-demand evaluation' distinguishes it from siblings like flab_matches_upcoming or flab_matches_today, which likely list matches for other purposes.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by telling the agent to use the returned matchId with flab_evaluate_match, and it warns that a Pro token is required. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus sibling list tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

Deploy Server