current_matchesList current and recent cricket matches (Test/ODI/T20) with live scores, teams, venue, and status. Use this for "what cricket matches are live/on right now". Returns match IDs usable with match_info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0). Each page returns up to 25 matches. | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own CricAPI key for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key",
+ "offset": 25
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds value by confirming it lists matches with live scores and returns match IDs, and it does not contradict annotations. No mention of rate limits or auth needs, but the context is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences: first sentence states the core purpose and output, second sentence provides usage context and connect to sibling tool. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return content (live scores, teams, venue, status, match IDs). Pagination is covered by the schema but not described explicitly. Still complete for a list 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The description does not elaborate on offset or _apiKey, which are already well-documented in the schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'current and recent cricket matches', and specifies scope (Test/ODI/T20) and content (live scores, teams, venue, status). It also differentiates from sibling 'match_info' by noting that the tool returns match IDs for use with match_info.
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 provides an explicit usage example ('what cricket matches are live/on right now') and implies when to use match_info for detailed match data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond match_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set mixes several near-overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, current_matches and match_scores largely duplicate each other, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) has fuzzy boundaries. Long descriptions help, but an agent would often need to read deeply to pick the right tool.
Most names are lowercase snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, scan_dependency, compare_entities), some are noun phrases (current_matches, match_info, entity_profile), and there are mixed prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, plain names). It is readable but not a coherent naming system.
35 tools is heavy, and only four of them (current_matches, match_info, match_scores, search_players) relate to the server's apparent cricket purpose. The rest are a sprawling general-purpose data/research/prediction-market/utility toolkit, making the surface feel bloated and off-scope.
As a cricket server, the surface is shallow: it has live matches, scores, match info, and player search, but no player stats, batting/bowling figures, team profiles, series/schedules, or historical match data. The many unrelated tools do not fill these obvious cricket-domain gaps.