Winning numbers for 30+ world lotteries, minutes after each draw. Free, no key, CC BY 4.0.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
latest_results and lottery_results both return winning numbers, which could cause minor confusion. However, latest_results explicitly covers all lotteries at once for the most recent draw, while lottery_results targets a single lottery with history or specific date, making the distinction clear from descriptions.
All tool names use snake_case consistently, but the patterns differ: list_lotteries follows a verb_noun format, while latest_results and lottery_results use adjective_noun. This is not chaotic, but the lack of a consistent verb prefix (e.g., get_) across all tools prevents a higher score.
Three tools is an appropriate scope for a lottery results server. Each tool serves a clear purpose: listing available lotteries, getting the latest combined results, and querying specific lottery history or dates, without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle of accessing lottery results: discovering lotteries, retrieving latest draws, and fetching historical results by date. A minor gap is lack of support for date-range queries or filtering, but the existing functionality handles the primary use cases well.
latest_resultsAInspectThe most recent winning numbers for every lottery covered, in one call. Use this for "what were last night's numbers" or any question that does not name a specific past date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses aggregate scope (every lottery in one call), but is silent on return format, caching, or potential side effects. Read-only nature is implied but not stated.
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?
Two sentences with minimal, high-signal wording. The first sentence states the result and scope; the second gives concrete usage examples. No redundancy or filler.
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, zero-parameter read operation, the description covers the what and when-to-use adequately. It lacks an output schema but does state the returned concept ('winning numbers'). A more formal structure description would be nice, but is not essential for tool selection.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description reinforces the no-input call with 'in one call' and adds no confusing detail. This matches the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.
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 identifies the exact object ('most recent winning numbers') and scope ('every lottery covered, in one call'). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with questions that name a specific past date, making this tool's 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?
Provides clear usage examples ('what were last night's numbers') and an exclusion criterion ('does not name a specific past date'). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but sibling 'lottery_results' is the obvious candidate for date-specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_lotteriesAInspectList every lottery this site publishes results for, with the size of each draw machine (how many numbers are picked, and from how many). Call this first if you are unsure which lotteries are covered or what code to use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the output includes the size of each draw machine and that it publishes results for all lotteries, disclosing the scope of the operation. It doesn't provide unrelated meta-information, but the nature is clear.
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?
Two sentences, first sentence is action-oriented, second provides a clear use case. No redundant or extra words.
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 zero params, no output schema, and no annotations, this description provides everything needed: what the tool does, what it returns (each lottery plus draw machine size), and when to use it. It is fully self-contained.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info because none is needed; the tool takes no arguments. The mention of 'code to use' refers to the output's usefulness for subsequent calls, not parameters.
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 opens with 'List every lottery this site publishes results for' - a specific verb (list) and resource (every lottery), and explains the output includes draw machine size. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like latest_results and lottery_results, which focus on fetching specific results.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this first if you are unsure which lotteries are covered or what code to use', giving direct when-to-use guidance and implicitly directing toward sibling tools for actual results retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lottery_resultsAInspectWinning numbers for one lottery — either its recent draw history, or a specific past date. Use the codes from list_lotteries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Optional draw date as YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the most recent. | |
| lottery | Yes | The lottery code, e.g. "euromillions". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (winning numbers, date flexibility) but does not explain return format, error handling, or resolve the ambiguity between 'recent draw history' and the schema's 'most recent' singular result.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Winning numbers', and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main modes but leaves gaps: unclear whether 'history' means multiple draws, no mention of response shape, and no handling of invalid dates or codes. Adequate but with notable ambiguities.
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 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds only the cross-reference to list_lotteries for the lottery code, which is helpful but minimal; it does not significantly augment parameter understanding.
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 the tool's function: retrieving winning numbers for a lottery, either recent history or a specific past date. It also references list_lotteries for codes, distinguishing it from that sibling and providing specific scope.
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?
The description gives clear context for use: it handles one lottery with either recent or dated draws, and instructs the user to obtain codes from list_lotteries. It does not explicitly compare to latest_results or state exclusions, so it lacks a fully explicit when-not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
