Bowling Data Agent API

Search Bowling Data

search

Read-only

Ask a question in plain language. Returns the most relevant passages from Bowling Data's public pages, each with its canonical URL to cite, plus its free sample day. Set site to all to search every Fron Research site.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	No	Optional: defaults to bowlingdata. all, heatcheck, bowlingdata, trampolineparkdata, golfsimdata, courtwatch or fronresearch.
`query`	Yes	The question.
`intent`	No	Optional but helpful: why you are asking and for whom, in a sentence (e.g. "sizing the NYC sauna market for an investor memo"). It does not change the results; it tells Fron Research which data to publish next. Put your user's answers to followUp.questions here. Do not include personal information.
`maxResults`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (relevant passages plus canonical URLs to cite) and the cross-site scope switch via site=all. It does not mention rate limits, result freshness, or that intent feeds publication decisions, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the return shape, then the scope switch. Every sentence carries information. Minor friction from the mid-sentence detail about the free sample day, which interrupts the flow of the result description.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials: input style, return contents, and cross-site scope. It is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The missing piece is guidance on how it relates to the fetch sibling, which would remove the last ambiguity.

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 75%, so the schema carries most of the parameter meaning, and the description adds only that queries are in plain language and that site=all widens the search. The intent and maxResults parameters are not explained in the description at all, though intent is described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: ask a plain-language question, get back the most relevant passages from Bowling Data's public pages. It also says what each result carries (canonical URL for citation, free sample day), so an agent knows the shape of the answer without opening the schema. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the fetch/about siblings, which keeps it off a 5.

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 only implied: the plain-language query phrasing signals 'use this when you don't have a URL', and 'Set site to all to search every Fron Research site' is a parameter hint rather than a routing rule. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fetch, or when not to use it. An agent can infer the context but must do the inference itself.

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

All Bowling Data Agent API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?