openliga_get_match_dataRetrieve detailed data for a specific match by its ID, including goals, results, and location, to analyze or verify match outcomes.
Get detailed data for a specific match by its ID, including goals, results, and location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| match_id | Yes | The numeric match ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / match_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991v1.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / match_id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v1.2.0Does 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 useful scope about what the payload contains (goals, results, location), but says nothing about behavior for an invalid or unknown match_id, which matters for an openWorld lookup.
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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the selector first and then the returned content, with no filler. It is efficient, though it is minimalist for a tool whose return shape is undocumented.
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?
A simple read-only lookup whose annotations cover safety and whose parameters are fully described by the schema. With no output schema the description partially compensates by listing the main payload sections, which is adequate for a single-ID fetch, though a note on missing/unknown matches would round it out.
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% with only two parameters, so both match_id and the 'fields' projection parameter are already documented in the schema. The description restates the ID lookup but adds no format, range, or projection syntax beyond what the schema provides, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed data for a specific match by its ID') and enumerates the payload ('goals, results, and location'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tools such as openliga_get_matches_by_league_season or openliga_get_matches_by_matchday. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 'by its ID' implies the caller must already hold a match ID, which hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the tools that produce match IDs. Usage is inferable but not documented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.