Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

esports_matches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve esports match data from PandaScore filtered by game, status, and pagination to support AI agent workflows.

Instructions

Get esports matches from PandaScore.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "esports_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gameNoe.g. lol, csgo, dota2
pageNo
statusNorunning, upcoming, past
api_keyNo
per_pageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the provider name and nothing about auth requirements (the api_key param), rate limits, pagination semantics, or what a match record contains — thin for an open-world third-party API call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally clean. However, this is brevity by omission rather than earned conciseness — the tool has five parameters and none are addressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter, zero-required, open-world listing tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum describe the result shape (a paginated match list) and the required auth. Instead it is one sentence that leaves the agent guessing about pagination and the api_key.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (game and status documented, page/per_page/api_key bare), and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain pagination defaults, page-size limits, or how to supply the key, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Get esports matches') plus the data source (PandaScore), which is enough to know what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling esports_get_match (single match by ID), leaving the listing-vs-lookup boundary implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of filtering by game/status, no routing to esports_get_match, esports_tournaments, esports_teams or esports_players, and no note that an api_key is expected. The agent must infer everything from parameter names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools