Skip to main content
Glama
kimhjort

aria-mcp-football

by kimhjort
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are mostly distinct: get_my_fixtures for upcoming followed teams, get_results for past followed teams, get_team_fixtures for any team (upcoming or past), live_now for current matches. However, get_team_fixtures with 'last' can overlap with get_results for followed teams, causing potential confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_my_fixtures, live_now). No mix of styles or abbreviations, ensuring predictability.

    Tool Count5/5

    4 tools are well-suited for the football match info domain. Each tool serves a distinct purpose (upcoming, past, live, generic team query), without being too few or excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core match lifecycle (upcoming, results, live) for both followed and general teams. Missing are tools for managing followed teams (env variable only) and broader football data like standings or player info, but these are beyond the stated scope.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states results are sorted newest-first with score and outcome but does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements (implied by 'followed teams'), or potential behaviors like empty results.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two sentences with no redundant information. The core functionality and sorting order are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

    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?

    Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (scores, outcomes, sorting). It misses details on error responses but is sufficient for a simple result-fetching tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the team parameter's behavior when omitted (returns all followed teams), but adds little beyond the schema for the 'last' parameter.

    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 retrieves recent finished match results with scores and outcomes, specifying it returns results for a followed team or all followed teams. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_fixtures and live_now.

    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?

    The description implies use for checking recent results but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives. The sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not offer exclusions.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Without annotations, the description fully details output fields, sorting, and a caveat about danishBroadcast being best-effort. Lacks info on error handling or permissions, but adequate for a read operation.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Concise at ~100 words, front-loaded with main action, structured logically with no unnecessary sentences.

    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?

    Covers all essential aspects: what, who, configuration, output, sorting, usage tip, caveat. Lacks explicit differentiation from siblings but is sufficient for its simple scope.

    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?

    With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's parameter definition. Baseline score applies.

    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?

    Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'upcoming fixtures', and scope 'for all followed football teams within the next N days'. It lists default teams and distinguishes itself from siblings as the primary daily check tool.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Explicitly indicates this is the primary tool for ARIA's daily check and suggests calling once to see if any team plays soon. Does not explicitly state when to avoid, but context is clear.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the output structure (fixture entries vs result entries) and notes that 'danishBroadcast' is best-effort, with verification links. Could mention rate limits or error handling, but overall informative for a read tool.

    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?

    Front-loaded with purpose and core parameters. The final note on broadcast verification is useful context but slightly lengthens the description. Generally efficient with no redundancy.

    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?

    With no output schema, the description adequately explains return types (fixture vs result entries). Covers behavior of all parameters and provides verification guidance. Lacks error handling or edge case info, but sufficient for typical use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining the interaction between 'days' and 'last' (ignored when last is set) and describing the output format, which goes beyond schema definitions.

    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?

    Clearly states it gets upcoming fixtures or recent results for a football team by name or ID. Differentiates from siblings like get_my_fixtures (user-specific) and live_now (current live) by its team-specific focus and date/result modes.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Provides explicit guidance on using the 'last' parameter to switch from fixtures to results. Does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use, but the description's clarity on functionality implicitly guides appropriate use.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Discloses premium vs free tier behavior (structured unavailable notice), and notes that danishBroadcast is a best-effort hint. No annotations exist, so description fully covers behavioral traits.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two concise sentences plus a helpful note, front-loaded with core action. No wasted words.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Explains return values for both premium and free tiers, despite no output schema. Covers behavioral caveat about danishBroadcast. Complete for a zero-parameter tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    No parameters in schema, description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline of 4 applies as it adds meaning about the tool's function beyond the empty schema.

    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?

    Description clearly states it checks if any followed football team is currently playing, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_fixtures (fixtures) and get_results (results) by focusing on live status.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Describes when to use (current live status) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives. Provides context on premium vs free key limitations.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

aria-mcp-football MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

aria-mcp-football MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kimhjort/aria-mcp-football'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server