get_club_matchesFetch all played and upcoming matches for every team of a club, including date, venue, and results across all competitions.
List all matches (played and upcoming) of every team of a club, across all its competitions. Each match has home/away team, date, time, venue, poule and result (uitslag, empty if not played yet; gespeeld = J means played).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| club_guid | Yes | Club GUID, e.g. BVBL1004 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it states that both played and upcoming matches are returned and explains the result semantics ('uitslag' empty when unplayed, 'gespeeld = J' indicates played). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but these are minor for this read-only list operation.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second enumerates the returned match fields and their meanings. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.
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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input scope, the full set of matches returned, and the key output field semantics. Nothing essential for invoking the tool or interpreting its result is missing.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single club_guid parameter, including a descriptive example. The description adds no new parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing the 'club' concept, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly bounded resource: all matches of every team of a club, across all competitions. This explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_team_matches, get_poule_matches, and get_match.
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?
The description clearly establishes the intended use case: retrieving a club-wide view of all matches across teams and competitions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope statement provides enough context for an agent to select it over narrower match-listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.