Check whether SportAPI serves live or demo data; with an API key, see expiry, sports, languages, restrictions, and 7-day request counts.
Show whether the server uses live data or demo data and, with an API key, the key's status: expiry, sports, languages, access restrictions and requests over 7 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the response varies depending on whether an API key is present, and the request-usage window is fixed at 7 days. It stops short of stating error behavior for invalid/expired keys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary distinction (live vs demo data) and then appends the keyed-detail fields. It is efficient with no filler, though the trailing list of six returned fields makes the sentence dense and slightly harder to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters, a 100% covered schema, and no output schema (so return-shape explanation is not required), the description supplies what an agent needs: what the tool reports and the conditional keyed behavior. Minor gap in not clarifying what is returned when no API key is supplied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The mention of 'with an API key' describes an ambient credential rather than a schema parameter, and no parameter-level semantics are needed. There is minor ambiguity because the description implies an input (the key) that does not appear in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource: server data mode (live vs demo) plus API-key status fields. This is immediately distinguishable from all siblings, which deal with sports, matches, and tournaments rather than account/server state. It lacks only an explicit framing sentence stating the tool's overall role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to check authentication/account state, and the phrase 'with an API key' hints at a keyed vs unkeyed branch. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., how the key is supplied), and no statement of when this tool should be preferred over any sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.