Skip to main content
Glama

get_team_matches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all qualification, playoff, and finals matches a team played in a given FRC season year across all events, including scores, alliances, and videos.

Instructions

List every qualification, playoff, and finals match a team played during a given FRC season year, across all events. Returns full match records: alliance compositions (red/blue with team keys, surrogates, DQ list), final scores, game-specific score breakdown, winning alliance, video links (YouTube/TBA), and predicted vs. actual times. Lighter variants: get_team_matches_simple (omits score breakdown and videos) and get_team_matches_keys (just match keys).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team_keyYesFRC team key formatted as 'frc' followed by the team number with no leading zeros (e.g., 'frc86', 'frc254', 'frc1114'). Uniquely identifies a FIRST Robotics Competition team on The Blue Alliance.
yearYesFRC competition season year. FRC began in 1992 and runs one game per year (e.g., 2023 = "Charged Up", 2024 = "Crescendo", 2025 = "Reefscape"). Must be between 1992 and next calendar year.

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for 'get_team_matches': parses team_key and year, calls TBA API /team/{team_key}/matches/{year}, validates response as an array of MatchSchema, returns JSON stringified match records.
    case 'get_team_matches': {
      const { team_key, year } = z
        .object({
          team_key: TeamKeySchema,
          year: YearSchema,
        })
        .parse(args);
      const data = await makeApiRequest(`/team/${team_key}/matches/${year}`);
      const matches = z.array(MatchSchema).parse(data);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(matches, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Input schema for get_team_matches: defines required fields team_key (TeamKeySchema) and year (YearSchema) using Zod.
    export const GetTeamMatchesInputSchema = z.object({
      team_key: TeamKeySchema,
      year: YearSchema,
    });
  • src/tools.ts:99-105 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_team_matches' tool with name, description, inputSchema (converted via toMCPSchema), and annotations marking it as a read-only API tool.
    {
      name: 'get_team_matches',
      description:
        'List every qualification, playoff, and finals match a team played during a given FRC season year, across all events. Returns full match records: alliance compositions (red/blue with team keys, surrogates, DQ list), final scores, game-specific score breakdown, winning alliance, video links (YouTube/TBA), and predicted vs. actual times. Lighter variants: get_team_matches_simple (omits score breakdown and videos) and get_team_matches_keys (just match keys).',
      inputSchema: toMCPSchema(GetTeamMatchesInputSchema),
      annotations: { ...READ_ONLY_API, title: 'Get Team Matches for a Year' },
    },
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the full return payload (alliances, scores, breakdowns, videos, times), but does not disclose any behavioral quirks (e.g., pagination, rate limits). For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is adequate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences: the first establishes the core purpose and scope, the second lists return fields and lighter variants. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description completely specifies what is returned (alliance compositions, scores, breakdowns, videos, times). It also informs about lighter variants for simpler needs. For a tool with no output schema, this is thorough and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed parameter descriptions for team_key (pattern, format example) and year (range, context). The description only mentions 'team key' and 'season year' without adding further semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics thoroughly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists qualification, playoff, and finals matches for a team in a given year across all events, and enumerates the returned fields. It differentiates from lighter variants (get_team_matches_simple and get_team_matches_keys) by specifying what they omit.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names two alternatives (get_team_matches_simple and get_team_matches_keys) and explains their differences: simpler versions omit score breakdown and videos or return only keys. This provides clear guidance on when to use this variant versus lighter alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/withinfocus/tba-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server