get_team_matchesRetrieve all played and upcoming matches for a team across competitions, with date, time, venue, opponent, poule, and result.
List all matches (played and upcoming) of one team across all its competitions. Each match includes date, time, venue, opponent, poule and result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_guid | Yes | Team GUID, e.g. 'BVBL1004HSE 2' (keep the spaces) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the list spans all competitions, includes both played and upcoming matches, and each entry exposes date, time, venue, opponent, poule, and result. It does not mention pagination or null-result behavior for unplayed matches, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.
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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by scope and return fields, every clause earning its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (date, time, venue, opponent, poule, result). It is complete enough for a simple list call, though it could specify that 'result' is absent or null for upcoming matches.
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%, and the team_guid parameter already has an example and a keep-the-spaces note. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond 'one team', so the schema carries the weight; 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: all matches of one team across all competitions, including played and upcoming. This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_poule_matches and get_club_matches without needing to open their schemas.
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 phrase 'of one team' implies the intended use case (team-level match lookup) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as 'use get_club_matches for all club matches' or 'use get_poule_matches for a poule'. The context is clear enough, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.