Retrieve WebSocket connection details for live esports data pushes, including URL, authentication, and subscription operations, so your application can establish its own socket connection.
Live push WebSocket contract (Builder+). Returns URL, auth, subscribe ops — connect from your app; MCP cannot hold the socket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | No | cs2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral detail: the tool returns URL/auth/subscribe ops, requires Builder+, and cannot hold the socket on the MCP side. This goes beyond a generic 'get' and informs the agent of an important practical limitation.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then delivers the key usage constraint. Every phrase adds value; there is no filler or repetition.
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?
The return categories (URL, auth, subscribe ops) and the connection limitation are covered, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and the only parameter is undocumented. An agent can call it, but it will not know how `sport` affects the result or the exact shape of the returned contract.
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 schema has one optional parameter, `sport`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent is given no guidance on what values are valid, what the default means, or how the parameter affects the returned contract.
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 names a specific verb-resource pair: it returns the live WebSocket contract, including URL, auth, and subscribe operations. It also distinguishes itself from the many data-fetching live tools by explicitly noting the socket is for the caller's app, not something MCP holds.
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 conveys the intended usage: obtain the WebSocket contract and connect from your app, since MCP cannot hold the socket. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.