Jogos da Copa do Mundo 2026 com placar e horário. Filtre por data (YYYY-MM-DD), seleção, grupo, fase ou status. Sem filtro, retorna os jogos de hoje. Use para 'que horas joga o Brasil', 'jogos de hoje', 'qual foi o placar de X'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| team | No | ||
| group | No | ||
| stage | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| timezone | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds value by explaining default behavior (returns today's matches) and filter options. It does not contradict annotations; it merely supplements them with practical context like the date format.
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?
The description is compact yet information-dense: opens with the core purpose, then filters, default behavior, and usage examples—all in three short sentences. No fluff or redundancy, front-loaded with the most critical 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 moderate complexity (6 optional filters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, filters, default behavior, and example queries. It does not describe the return structure or timezone handling, but for a read-only simple query tool, it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all filterable parameters (date, team, group, stage, status) and explicitly formats date as YYYY-MM-DD. It also implies filters are optional via the default behavior. However, it omits the 'timezone' parameter entirely, which is a notable gap.
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 it returns 2026 World Cup matches with score and time, and differentiates from sibling tools like schedule (which likely lacks scores) by emphasizing placar. It also specifies default behavior (today's matches) and example user queries, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It gives explicit use cases ('que horas joga o Brasil', 'jogos de hoje', 'qual foi o placar'), and states the default behavior without filters. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or how it compares to siblings like worldcup_schedule, only offering positive examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.