Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sofascore_team_rankings

Instructions

SofaScore team rankings. Returns every ranking a team or tennis player appears in: for a tennis player the ATP or WTA ranking, its live version and the UTR rating, for a football club the UEFA club coefficient by year. Each ranking carries its type_id (the same ids the rankings endpoint takes), name, sport, category and last update, and rows with the position, points, previous and best position where SofaScore reports them. Returns 404 when the id appears in no ranking.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeric SofaScore team id (a tennis player id for tennis)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.12Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly does so: it discloses the 404 behavior when the id appears in no ranking, and describes the returned payload shape (`type_id`, name, sport, category, last update, and `rows` with position/points/previous/best). It omits auth, rate-limit, or partial-data caveats, but the error-path disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then example behavior by sport, then payload contents, then the error case. It is dense with useful detail and each sentence carries weight; only the enumeration of row fields borders on more detail than strictly needed.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply the return picture, and it does list the fields per ranking and per row plus the 404 case. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; an explicit note on how to obtain the id would make it fully complete.

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 `id` parameter is already documented as 'Numeric SofaScore team id (a tennis player id for tennis)', so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the dual meaning of the id and clarifies that emitted `type_id` values interoperate with the rankings endpoint, but adds no new syntax or format constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource with clear scope: it returns every ranking a team or tennis player appears in, and concretely enumerates what that means (ATP/WTA + live + UTR for tennis, UEFA club coefficient by year for football). That is unmistakable. It references the rankings endpoint only for the `type_id` format rather than differentiating when to call this instead of `sofascore_rankings`, so it falls short of full sibling separation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the input description (you need a team/tennis-player id) and by the note that `type_id` values are the same ids the rankings endpoint takes, which hints at cross-tool chaining. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so guidance is only inferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

sofascore_team_rankings

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools