Retrieve in-progress football fixtures and live scores, optionally filtered by league IDs, to monitor matches as they happen.
Live fixtures in progress, optionally filtered by league ids
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| leagues | No | League ids joined by '-', e.g. '39-140' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — the result set is scoped to matches currently in play, meaning it changes over time — but says nothing about empty results when no matches are live, rate limits, or freshness/caching.
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?
One short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional modifier trailing, which is the right order. It is perhaps too terse for a tool with no annotations, but there is no wasted wording.
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?
For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to narrow it, which is close to sufficient. It leaves the agent guessing about the response shape and the empty-live-set case, which matters for a real-time tool.
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 single parameter documents the '-' separator and an example ('39-140'), so the description's mention of league-id filtering adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific verb-less but clear resource statement: live fixtures currently in progress, with an optional league filter. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'fixtures' tool by the word 'live' and 'in progress', though it never explicitly contrasts the two.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'in progress' and 'optionally filtered' tell an agent this returns the current live set and that omitting 'leagues' widens scope. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling 'fixtures' tool, nor any note on polling cadence for live data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.