Retrieve live football scores for ongoing matches, including goals and match time. Filter by league (EPL, LaLiga, Bundesliga, Champions League) or view all.
현재 진행 중인 축구 경기의 실시간 스코어를 조회합니다. 골, 경기 시간 등 포함. (API-Football 키 필요)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| league | No | 특정 리그만 보려면 입력 (예: EPL, LaLiga, Bundesliga, 챔피언스리그). 없으면 전체. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-style live score lookup, that goals and match time are included, and that an API-Football key is required. However, it omits rate limits, quota behavior, data freshness, empty-live-match handling, and other operational details an agent might need.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by included data and an auth requirement. Every sentence is brief and relevant, though the parenthetical API key note and fragment-like phrasing keep it slightly short of ideal polish.
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 simple one-parameter tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives an adequate high-level view: live soccer scores, included data, and API key requirement. It does not describe return structure, empty-result behavior, or filtering nuances, but those gaps are moderate given the tool's simplicity.
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% for the single optional 'league' parameter, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline of 3 when 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 states a specific verb and resource in Korean: retrieving real-time scores for currently in-progress soccer matches. It also names the included data, goals and match time, which makes the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_today_fixtures or get_recent_results, but the '현재 진행 중인' scope implies live matches rather than scheduled or completed ones.
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 description implies usage by saying 'currently in-progress soccer matches,' but it never states when to use this tool instead of get_today_fixtures, get_recent_results, or other siblings. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection guidance beyond the implied live-match context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.