Fetch a specific esports match by KashRock match ID or slug. Returns match details with teams and players as KashRock IDs.
One match by kr_match_id (preferred) or slug. Teams/players are KashRock ids. Builder+.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | ||
| sport | Yes | ||
| match_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about KashRock ids and the preferred key, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, return format, error cases, or the role of the required sport parameter. For a tool with no annotation safety net, this is thin.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary resource and identifying constraints are front-loaded, and every phrase adds signal.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description leaves critical gaps: what sport means and why it is required, what the returned match object looks like, and what 'Builder+' implies about access. An agent can guess the intent but cannot invoke the tool with full confidence.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies match_id/slug usage and priority, but the only required parameter, sport, is never explained. The 'Teams/players are KashRock ids' note seems to describe returned values more than input param formats.
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 specific operation ('One match') with a clear resource and the two accepted identifiers, and marks kr_match_id as preferred. The singular 'one match' also differentiates it from sibling tools like get_matches and search_matches.
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?
It provides a parameter preference ('kr_match_id preferred or slug') but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over get_matches or search_matches, nor when slug would be the better choice. Usage is implied rather than stated with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.