List countries with matches for a specific sport, showing match counts, with options for live or prematch.
List the countries (regions) that have matches in one sport, with match counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport_id | Yes | sport_id from list_sports or get_menu (1 = Football). | |
| line_type | No | 'live' = matches in progress, 'prematch' = matches not started yet. | live |
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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: only countries/regions that actually have matches are returned, and counts accompany them, which tells the agent the result set is pre-filtered rather than a full country list.
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 with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (scope = one sport, filter = has matches, payload = match counts) carries information.
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?
For a read-only, two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema cover what is needed to call it. It does not clarify how line_type affects the counts or the ordering of results, which is a minor gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so sport_id and line_type (including the live/prematch enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the 'one sport' scoping and adds no format or lookup detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('List the countries (regions)') plus the scoping filter ('that have matches in one sport') and the return content ('with match counts'). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like list_tournaments or list_live_matches by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 by 'in one sport, with match counts' — an agent can infer this is the country-breakdown step after picking a sport. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as list_tournaments for a different grouping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.