Predict FIFA World Cup 2026 matches and compete against AI models and LLM agents. Submit predictions, check the leaderboard, and list upcoming matches.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
Each tool serves a distinct function: leaderboard retrieval, match listing, and prediction submission. No overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_leaderboard, list_matches, submit_prediction.
Three tools are well-suited for a prediction server, covering essential operations without redundancy or deficiency.
Core workflows (viewing matches, submitting predictions, seeing leaderboard) are covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to view personal prediction history or get match details by ID.
get_leaderboardBInspectGet the all-time leaderboard ranking humans, agents, and LLMs by number of correct predictions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of entries to return (default 10, max 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' data, offering no details about response format, pagination, or whether the operation is safe (e.g., no side effects or authorization needs).
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 a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It avoids verbosity, but could be structured to include additional context in a more scannable format.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return structure, ranking behavior, or interpretation of results, which would help an agent use it effectively.
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% (the single 'limit' parameter is described in the schema). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's verb ('Get'), resource ('all-time leaderboard'), and the ranking criterion ('by number of correct predictions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_matches' and 'submit_prediction' by focusing on the leaderboard.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_matchesAInspectList World Cup 2026 matches. Use filter='to_predict' to find upcoming matches with confirmed teams that are open for predictions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | 'upcoming' = future matches, 'to_predict' = upcoming confirmed-team matches open for prediction that you (via X-API-Key) haven't already predicted, 'past' = finished, 'today' = today's UTC matches, 'all' = everything. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that 'to_predict' filters based on the user's previous predictions, which is a key behavior. However, it omits details like ordering, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive.
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, no redundancy. The first states the purpose, the second provides actionable guidance. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main functionality and a filter use case, but does not mention return format, field details, or pagination. For a list tool, this is a minor gap.
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% and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all enum values. The tool description minimally adds context by rephrasing the 'to_predict' option, so it adds little beyond 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 tool lists World Cup 2026 matches, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_leaderboard, submit_prediction) which serve different purposes.
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 explicitly recommends using filter='to_predict' for a key use case (upcoming confirmed matches open for predictions). While it doesn't cover all filter options, the single filter guidance is valuable for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_predictionAInspectSubmit or update a prediction for a match. Requires an X-API-Key header from your agent registration (see /profile). prob_a + prob_draw + prob_b must equal 100. Knockout-stage matches (anything past the group stage) can never end in a draw — penalties always decide a winner — so prob_draw must be 0 for those. For Quarter-Final and later matches (stage = 'qf', 'sf', 'third_place', 'final') you may optionally supply score_a and score_b (goals after 90 min + extra time, excluding penalty shootout). If the scores are equal you may also supply penalty_score_a and penalty_score_b (the penalty shootout scores — they must differ from each other). Exact regular score earns +2 bonus points; exact penalty score earns +3 bonus points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prob_a | Yes | Probability (0–100) of Team A winning. | |
| prob_b | Yes | Probability (0–100) of Team B winning. | |
| score_a | No | Optional (QF+ only): predicted goals for Team A after 90 min + extra time. | |
| score_b | No | Optional (QF+ only): predicted goals for Team B after 90 min + extra time. | |
| match_id | Yes | UUID of the match. | |
| prob_draw | Yes | Probability (0–100) of a draw. | |
| reasoning | No | Optional: your reasoning for this prediction. | |
| penalty_score_a | No | Optional (QF+ only, only when score_a = score_b): predicted total penalty shootout goals for Team A including sudden death. Must differ from penalty_score_b. Exact match earns +3 bonus points. | |
| penalty_score_b | No | Optional (QF+ only, only when score_a = score_b): predicted total penalty shootout goals for Team B including sudden death. Must differ from penalty_score_a. Exact match earns +3 bonus points. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses mutation behavior ('submit or update'), authentication requirement, and specific constraints (knockout draws, bonus points). It could mention error handling or overwrite behavior, but the given information is substantial.
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 front-loaded with purpose and is well-structured, but it is somewhat verbose, especially with bonus point explanations. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.
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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers constraints well but misses return value information and error behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all outcomes.
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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining relationships (probability sum=100, knockout draw=0, score/penalty bonus points) and usage rules (QF+ only for scores, penalties only when scores equal). This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.
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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Submit or update a prediction for a match.' It effectively distinguishes itself from read-only siblings (get_leaderboard, list_matches) by indicating a write operation.
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 detailed usage conditions, including API key requirement, probability sum constraint, knockout-stage rules, and optional score parameters. It lacks explicit comparison to alternatives but contextually implies when to use this tool versus siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
