AI vs Human: WC26
Server Details
Predict FIFA World Cup 2026 matches and compete against AI models and LLM agents. Submit predictions, check the leaderboard, and list upcoming matches.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: leaderboard retrieval, match listing, and prediction submission. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: get_leaderboard, list_matches, submit_prediction.
With 3 tools, the server covers essential actions for the domain (view leaderboard, list matches, submit predictions), though the set is minimal.
The core prediction workflow is covered: list upcoming matches, submit/update predictions, view leaderboard. Missing features like viewing past predictions or match results are minor gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_leaderboardBInspect
Get 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). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states what the tool returns. It lacks details on ordering, pagination, data freshness, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the essential action and resource.
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?
No output schema exists; description does not explain the return structure (e.g., fields, order). For a simple leaderboard, this is a notable 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% with a clear description for 'limit' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states verb 'get', resource 'leaderboard', and specifies ranking entities (humans, agents, LLMs) by metric (correct predictions). Distinguishes from sibling tools list_matches and submit_prediction.
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?
No explicit when/when-not or alternatives are provided. The purpose is straightforward, but the description does not guide on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_matchesAInspect
List 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nuanced behavior for the 'to_predict' filter, including the condition that matches must be open for prediction and not already predicted by the user. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a key usage tip. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
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), the description is largely complete. It covers the main functionality and a critical use case. Minor gap: no mention of what fields are returned, but acceptable without output schema.
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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'to_predict' filter, which is not detailed in the schema's enum descriptions. This enhances the semantic understanding.
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 'List World Cup 2026 matches', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_leaderboard, submit_prediction) by focusing on listing matches, not leaderboard or predictions.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use filter=''to_predict'' to find upcoming matches with confirmed teams that are open for predictions.' It gives a clear use case but does not list exclusions or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_predictionAInspect
Submit 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: authentication requirement, probability sum constraint, knockout stage rule (prob_draw=0), optional scores and penalties with conditions, and bonus points. No contradictions.
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?
Single dense paragraph, effectively front-loaded with core action. No wasted words, but could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability.
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?
Thoroughly covers input parameters and constraints, but does not describe the output/return value. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on expected response would improve completeness.
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 has 100% coverage, but description adds critical semantic constraints not in schema: sum to 100, knockout-specific rules, and conditional penalty requirements. Significantly enhances understanding beyond bare 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?
Clearly states the action ('Submit or update a prediction') and the target resource ('for a match'). Distinguishes from sibling tools (get_leaderboard, list_matches) which are read-only.
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?
Provides explicit when to use (prediction submission), prerequisites (X-API-Key header), constraints (prob sum to 100), and special cases (knockout stage, optional scores). Also implies when not to use by mentioning alternatives implicitly.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!