rugby
Server Details
First dedicated rugby MCP — Six Nations, Rugby Championship, World Cup. Fixtures + venues.
- 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 4.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: getMatch retrieves a single match by code, getMatches lists matches with filtering, getTeams provides team info, getTournament gets a specific tournament with schedule, and getTournaments lists all tournaments. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get' + singular or plural noun (Match, Matches, Teams, Tournament, Tournaments). The prefix 'whensport_rugby_' is uniform.
With 5 tools, the set is appropriately scoped for querying rugby matches and tournaments. It covers the essential operations without being too sparse or overwhelming.
The tools cover the main use cases: retrieving individual and list representations of matches, teams, and tournaments. There is no create/update/delete, but that is expected for a read-only data source. The only minor gap is lack of direct date-range filtering, but filtering by tournament and team compensates.
Available Tools
5 toolswhensport_rugby_getMatchGet a single rugby match by codeARead-onlyInspect
Get a single rugby match by its match code (e.g. "6n-1" for Six Nations match 1, "rc-3" for Rugby Championship match 3). The code is in the match field of getMatches output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matchCode | Yes | Match identifier — value of the `match` field in getMatches output (e.g. 6n-1, rc-3). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Description adds code format context but no additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits). Adequate given annotation coverage.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, 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?
Low complexity (1 param, no output schema). Description fully explains what the tool does and how to obtain the required parameter. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 provides 100% coverage. Description adds value with code examples and cross-reference to getMatches output, clarifying parameter origin beyond 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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a single rugby match by code, with explicit examples (e.g., '6n-1', 'rc-3'). Distinguishes from siblings like getMatches (list) and getTeams.
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?
Specifies when to use (when you have a match code from getMatches output). Implicitly contrasts with getMatches for listing. Lacks explicit when-not but sufficiently guides selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whensport_rugby_getMatchesGet all tracked rugby matchesARead-onlyInspect
Get rugby matches across tracked tournaments (Six Nations, Top 14, Premiership, URC, Super Rugby Pacific, Rugby Championship, Nations Championship, Pacific Four, etc.). Filtering is strongly recommended — the unfiltered match set is large. Default limit is 50 (max 200); when more matches exist the response includes truncated: true, moreCount, and nextOffset. Page through results by passing the response's nextOffset back as offset. Filter by tournament slug or by team (3-letter code or team slug) to narrow results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Team identifier — either a 3-letter code (FRA, IRE, RSA, NZL) or a team slug (france, ireland, south-africa, new-zealand). Matched case-insensitively against team1/team2. | |
| limit | No | Maximum matches to return. Default 50, max 200. | |
| offset | No | Skip the first N matches; use the response's `nextOffset` for paging. | |
| tournament | No | Tournament slug e.g. "six-nations-2026", "top-14-2025-26", "urc-2025-26". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only. Description adds paging behavior, default/max limits, truncation fields, and that unfiltered results can be large. But no mention of data freshness 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 paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning: purpose, filtering advice, limits, paging, examples. No redundancy.
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?
Adequately covers paging, filtering, and truncation. Could mention relationship to sibling tools like getMatch, but not essential given name differentiation.
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, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by noting case-insensitive matching for team and paging mechanism with nextOffset, improving semantics.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves rugby matches across tracked tournaments, listing examples. It distinguishes from sibling 'getMatch' by being plural and mentioning filtering options.
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?
Strongly recommends filtering due to large unfiltered set, explains paging with offset, and provides filter examples. However, does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for single match retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whensport_rugby_getTeamswhensport_rugby_getTeamsARead-onlyInspect
Get the rugby teams in scope, optionally scoped to a tournament. Each team has a 3-letter code (e.g. "FRA", "RSA", "NZL"), full name, and the tournaments it competes in. Use this to enumerate valid team values for rugby_getMatches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tournament | No | Optional tournament slug to scope the team list (e.g. "six-nations-2026", "top-14-2025-26"). When omitted, returns every team that appears in any tracked match. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, safe read. Description adds behavioral details: optional tournament scoping, output fields (code, name, tournaments), and the tool's role in providing valid inputs for another tool. 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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, output details, usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded with the action.
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 1-parameter read-only tool, the description covers operation, optional parameter, output content, and relationship to sibling getMatches tool. No gaps.
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 of the single parameter. The description adds examples (e.g., 'six-nations-2026') and reinforces the scoping role, but does not add substantial meaning 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 'Get the rugby teams in scope' and specifies the optional tournament scoping. It also explains the output (3-letter code, name, tournaments) and explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating its use for enumerating valid team values for getMatches.
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 provides when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate valid `team` values for rugby_getMatches.' It implies a specific use case but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like using tournament tools for team info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whensport_rugby_getTournamentGet a single rugby tournament by slugARead-onlyInspect
Get a single rugby tournament by slug (e.g. six-nations-2026, top-14-2025-26, urc-2025-26, nations-championship-2026). Returns the full schedule when present (Six Nations, Nations Championship); other tournaments use rugby_getMatches?tournament=… instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral nuance about which tournaments return the full schedule, going beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, 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?
Complete for a single-entity retrieval tool with conditional behavior; covers what it returns, when, and alternative usage.
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 0% description coverage for slug, but description compensates with concrete examples (e.g., six-nations-2026), adding meaning beyond the type 'string'.
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 'Get a single rugby tournament by slug' with specific examples, and distinguishes from sibling tools like getTournaments (plural) and getMatches.
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 guidance: when the full schedule is present (e.g., Six Nations) this tool returns it; otherwise, advises to use rugby_getMatches?tournament=... instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whensport_rugby_getTournamentsGet the rugby tournament listARead-onlyInspect
Get rugby tournaments tracked by whensport (Six Nations, Rugby Championship, World Cup, Top 14, Premiership, URC, etc.). Returns lightweight metadata (name, dates, format, team count) — call rugby_getTournament(slug) for the full schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upcomingOnly | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds behavioral context by specifying return fields (name, dates, format, team count) and hints at next steps, aligning with annotations.
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, front-loaded with core purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient delivery of essential 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 (list with one optional param), the description covers purpose, return type, and sibling differentiation. No output schema needed; context is sufficient.
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 0% as the description does not mention the single parameter 'upcomingOnly'. With no explanation, the agent must infer its purpose, which is insufficient for precise invocation.
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 'Get', resource 'tournaments', and lists specific examples (Six Nations, Rugby Championship, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'rugby_getTournament(slug)' for single tournament details.
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?
Explicitly provides when-to-use context: returns lightweight metadata, and suggests using 'rugby_getTournament(slug)' for full schedule. This guides the agent on appropriate tool selection.
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!