worldcup_bracket
Read-onlyIdempotent
Chaveamento do mata-mata (16 avos até a final) com os confrontos e os classificados conhecidos. Use para 'como está o chaveamento'.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No |
Copa do Mundo 2026
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the read-only annotation but does not add extra behavioral context beyond what is already declared. It mentions the content of the bracket (confrontos and classificados), which adds slight context but not substantial transparency.
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 concise and to the point, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and a usage example. It is well structured and free of unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the bracket includes and gives a query example, but it lacks explanation of the 'stage' parameter, making it incomplete for users who need to know how to filter by stage. However, the overall concept is simple and mostly covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'stage' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'stage' represents or how it filters the bracket.
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 clearly states the tool provides the knockout bracket from the round of 16 to the final, including matchups and qualified teams. It is specific about the resource (bracket) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like groups, matches, and schedules.
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?
The description explicitly gives a usage example ('como está o chaveamento') and implies it is the tool for bracket-related queries. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The World Cup tools (worldcup_bracket, worldcup_groups, worldcup_matches, etc.) are clearly distinct with specific usage examples. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are also distinct, though connect and toolkit_info have some overlap in reporting connection status. Overall, agents should select the correct tool with minimal ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
The eight World Cup tools follow a consistent 'worldcup_<noun>' pattern, but the six platform tools use mixed conventions: verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). This inconsistency across the two groups hurts overall coherence, even though each group is internally consistent.
Tool Count4/5
With 14 tools, the count is within the recommended range. It covers both the platform management surface (6 tools) and the World Cup data domain (8 tools). The number feels justified for the server's dual purpose, though it could be seen as slightly heavy for a single focused use case.
Completeness4/5
The World Cup tools provide comprehensive coverage: teams, groups, matches, results, schedule, standings, bracket, and venues—no obvious gaps for a tournament information server. The platform tools cover auth, connection, marketplace, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state, which is complete for their purpose. Minor missing features like player stats or news are not essential.