Seleções participantes (48 no total) com ranking FIFA e confederação. Passe team para o perfil de uma seleção específica.
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": "worldcup_teams"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | ||
| confederation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context—48 teams, FIFA ranking, confederation—and the parameter-dependent behavior of returning a specific profile. It does not describe output format or edge cases, but for a simple read-only list tool this is acceptable.
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 two short sentences, front-loads the primary function, and contains no filler. Every word serves a purpose, and the parameter hint is placed clearly.
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?
For a simple two-optional-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. Missing details are the behavior of the `confederation` parameter, what happens when no parameters are provided, and output shape. Since there is no output schema, a bit more guidance would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains `team` ('perfil de uma seleção específica') but leaves `confederation` completely unexplained. This is a partial compensation: one parameter gains meaning, but the other still relies on the agent's inference from the property name.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: it lists the 48 participating World Cup teams with FIFA ranking and confederation, and can provide a profile for a specific team via the `team` parameter. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like worldcup_matches or worldcup_groups, though it does not state an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: 'Passe team para o perfil de uma seleção específica' indicates when to use the team parameter. However, there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of what the `confederation` parameter is for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.