SiteCheck Web Intel

World Rugby men's 15s world rankings: position, team

search_world_rugby_rankings

Read-only

World Rugby men's 15s world rankings (official rankings API, public, no key): position, team, country code, rating points and previous position and points, from the current table. Men's rankings only; the table is updated by World Rugby. Related tools on this server, for a different need: search_fifa_team_rankings when you need FIFA men's national team world ranking: position, team; search_owgr_golf_rankings when you need Official World Golf Ranking: current men's position, player. 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_world_rugby_rankings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many teams from the top, 1 to 100 (default 20)

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is in the operational details it supplies: public API, no key required, table maintained/updated by World Rugby, and x402 pricing at $0.002 per successful call with failed calls not charged. That pricing and payment-rail disclosure (Base, Solana, Arc) is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from annotations, though the price copy reads partly promotional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and the alternative-routing sentence is well-placed, but the field list is repeated for each sibling reference and the payment paragraph is longer than the operational need requires. The sentence count is higher than the tool's complexity justifies.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return fields need not be re-explained, and annotations plus the description together cover safety profile, cost, auth, and freshness. For a single optional-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only ordering behavior (whether limit always means top-of-table) is left implicit.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is documented in-schema as 'How many teams from the top, 1 to 100 (default 20)'. The description adds nothing beyond that apart from the implicit 'from the top' ordering, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first clause names the specific resource (World Rugby men's 15s world rankings) and immediately enumerates the returned fields: position, team, country code, rating points, previous position and points. It also scopes the tool ('Men's rankings only') and distinguishes it from sibling ranking tools, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly routes to alternatives with the condition that selects them: search_fifa_team_rankings for FIFA men's national team ranking and search_owgr_golf_rankings for Official World Golf Ranking. The 'Men's rankings only' constraint plus 'for a different need' framing makes the when-not-to-use case unambiguous.

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?