SiteCheck Web Intel

FIFA men's national team world ranking: position, team

search_fifa_team_rankings

Read-only

FIFA men's national team world ranking (FIFA public ranking API, no key): position, team, country code, total points, previous points and previous rank for one ranking date. Default date is the latest one listed on FIFA's site when built (2026-10-20); pass dateId to read another listed date. Men's ranking only. Related tools on this server, for a different need: search_owgr_golf_rankings when you need Official World Golf Ranking: current men's position, player; search_world_rugby_rankings when you need World Rugby men's 15s world rankings: position, team. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_fifa_team_rankings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many teams from the top, 1 to 211 (default 20)
`dateId`	No	Ranking date id such as id14870 (letters, digits and underscore, up to 40 characters; default id14870)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`dateId`	No
`source`	No
`rankings`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`teamCount`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that no API key is required, that each successful call costs $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, and that failed calls are not charged — cost and payment-rail information an agent cannot get from structured fields. It also pins the default date behavior, removing ambiguity about which snapshot is returned.

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 purpose and date semantics are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with sibling routing and pricing trailing. The enumeration of output fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, and the related-tools clause runs long, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, default behavior, date override, cost and payment mechanism, and cross-tool routing. No material gap remains.

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%, so both limit (1–211, default 20) and dateId format are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds meaning only for dateId by explaining that the default is the latest date listed on FIFA's site at build time. That is a marginal addition over the schema, consistent with the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource — FIFA men's national team world ranking — and enumerates the returned fields (position, team, country code, total points, previous points, previous rank). It scopes the tool to one ranking date and to men's rankings only, which makes it clearly distinguishable from the golf and rugby ranking siblings it names.

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?

It gives clear operational context: the default date is the latest listed at build time (2026-10-20) and dateId should be passed to read a different listed date. It also routes the agent to search_owgr_golf_rankings and search_world_rugby_rankings for those domains. What's missing is guidance on when this tool is the wrong choice within its own domain (e.g., historical date coverage limits or no women's ranking).

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?