Crawlora MCP

futgg_fc27_objective_group_by_ea

Read-only

Read one FC27 objective group by its EA group id and return the same public parent-group metadata as futgg_fc27_objective_group. Take id from a listing row's eaId, not its internal database id or a child objective EA id. No account state or cross-edition fallback.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "futgg_fc27_objective_group_by_ea"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Required positive EA group id from a listing row's eaId. This is not the internal database id or a child objective EA id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuine scope context: 'No account state or cross-edition fallback' tells the agent results are edition-local and anonymous. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the id is absent or of cross-edition differences beyond the bare denial.

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 the operation, then the id rule, then the scope caveat; nothing is padded. The middle sentence duplicates the schema text, which costs it a point on economy.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, id sourcing, and output parity with a sibling. The only real gap is what happens on a missing or non-existent group id, which the description never touches.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema property already states 'Required positive EA group id ... not the internal database id or a child objective EA id', so the description's id sourcing sentence largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and no new format or range detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one FC27 objective group by its EA group id') and anchors its output to the sibling futgg_fc27_objective_group. The contrast with the other lookup path is implied through the id-type caveat rather than stated head-on, so an agent can separate it from siblings but must read the second sentence to do so.

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?

Gives explicit positive and negative id sourcing: use a listing row's eaId, not the internal database id or a child objective EA id, which implicitly routes to the two sibling lookups. It does not name those sibling tools directly, so the routing is inferential rather than spelled out.

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

All Crawlora MCP 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.