Football Database and Results

Countries

list_countries

Read-onlyIdempotent

[FREE] Every country in the database, with its FIFA code and id.

Use it to turn a country name into the id and FIFA code the rest of the data is keyed by, or to check which countries are covered at all. Search with q, which matches a name prefix or an exact FIFA code ("ENG"). Countries that no longer exist are included and flagged, because the match archive still holds their games.

Free: no key needed, and it costs a key holder nothing either.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Country name prefix, or an exact FIFA code such as ENG or BRA.
`limit`	No	How many countries to return. Default 25; the total is always reported.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Countries matching the search.
`hint`	No	Present only when rows were left out: how to narrow the call.
`total`	Yes	How many rows matched before the limit.
`returned`	Yes	How many rows are in data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Countries matching the search.",
+      "items": {
+        "description": "A country.",
+        "properties": {
+          "exists_now": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "fifa_code": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "is_international": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "iso2": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "hint": {
+      "description": "Present only when rows were left out: how to narrow the call.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "returned": {
+      "description": "How many rows are in data.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "How many rows matched before the limit.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data",
+    "total",
+    "returned"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is free/no key needed, includes and flags defunct countries because the match archive still holds their games, and mentions that the total is always reported. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core result and use cases. The free-tier note is slightly redundant with the opening '[FREE]', but it is brief and does not hurt clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed: purpose, keyed id usage, q search behavior, defunct-country handling, and free access. Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: q and limit are both fully described, including the exact FIFA code example and limit bounds/default. The description restates q's prefix/exact-match behavior but does not add materially new parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Every country in the database, with its FIFA code and id.' This makes the tool's scope and output immediately clear. It is also distinct enough from sibling list tools like list_teams and list_tournaments because it explicitly names countries as the resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete use cases: 'turn a country name into the id and FIFA code the rest of the data is keyed by' or 'check which countries are covered at all.' It also explains the q matching behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is clear and sufficient for this simple list tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Football Database and Results tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?