Skip to main content
Glama
zafronix

World Cup History MCP

get_standings

Retrieve final group standings for any World Cup year, including W/D/L, goals, and points, with FIFA tiebreaker logic applied.

Instructions

Computed group standings with FIFA tiebreakers applied. Returns the order teams finished within each group of the given year, including W/D/L, GF, GA, GD, points. Use this for "show me the 1990 Group F table" or "who finished where in 2022 Group H?".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYesTournament year
groupNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for get_standings. Calls the API endpoint /standings with year and optional group parameters.
    handler: async (args: { year: number; group?: string }) => {
      const params = new URLSearchParams({ year: String(args.year) });
      if (args.group) params.set('group', args.group);
      return api(`/standings?${params.toString()}`);
    },
  • The input schema for get_standings. Validates year (required int 1930-2030) and group (optional single letter A-Z).
    schema: z.object({
      year:  z.number().int().min(1930).max(2030).describe('Tournament year'),
      group: z.string().regex(/^[A-Z]$/).optional().describe('Single group letter (optional)'),
    }).strict(),
  • src/index.ts:305-319 (registration)
    The tool registration entry for get_standings within the 'tools' array. Contains name, description, schema, and handler.
      name: 'get_standings',
      description:
        'Computed group standings with FIFA tiebreakers applied. Returns the order teams ' +
        'finished within each group of the given year, including W/D/L, GF, GA, GD, points. ' +
        'Use this for "show me the 1990 Group F table" or "who finished where in 2022 Group H?".',
      schema: z.object({
        year:  z.number().int().min(1930).max(2030).describe('Tournament year'),
        group: z.string().regex(/^[A-Z]$/).optional().describe('Single group letter (optional)'),
      }).strict(),
      handler: async (args: { year: number; group?: string }) => {
        const params = new URLSearchParams({ year: String(args.year) });
        if (args.group) params.set('group', args.group);
        return api(`/standings?${params.toString()}`);
      },
    },
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states that standings are computed with FIFA tiebreakers and lists output fields, but does not discuss error handling, data freshness, or what occurs if a group is omitted.

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 an example. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (computed standings with tiebreakers) appears first.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema, the description lists expected fields (W/D/L, GF, GA, GD, points). However, it does not clarify the behavior when 'group' is omitted (e.g., returns all groups?) or how missing data is handled.

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?

The schema describes 'year' as 'Tournament year', but 'group' has no description. The description provides examples using group letters (e.g., 'Group F') but does not specify the expected format or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it returns computed group standings with tiebreakers applied, and gives specific examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tournament or list_matches which provide different data.

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?

The description provides example queries that suggest when to use this tool (e.g., 'show me the 1990 Group F table'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/zafronix/wc-mcp'

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