Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Crawlora MCP

by net.crawlora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

hltv_event

Read-only

Get a Counter-Strike event overview. Returns one event's public HLTV overview page by numeric id: name, canonical URL, status (finished, ongoing, or upcoming), start/end dates in UTC, total prize pool, participating team count, location, and the attending teams with their ids, logos and the HLTV/Valve ranking positions shown at event start. The trailing slug is cosmetic and optional; HLTV resolves the event by id. Use hltv-events to discover event ids.

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": "hltv_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesHLTV numeric event id
slugNoCosmetic event slug; HLTV resolves the event by id

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by explaining resolution semantics (id is authoritative, slug is cosmetic) and that the page is public. It also discloses the enumerated `status` values and that dates are UTC, though it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 the core action and payload, then the routing hint last, which is the right order. The single long sentence listing return fields is slightly dense but every clause is informative and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still gives a compact field inventory that sets expectations, and the id/slug interaction is fully clarified. For a two-parameter read-only fetch, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters already carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema ('numeric id', 'slug is cosmetic and optional', 'HLTV resolves the event by id'), adding only mild emphasis rather than new format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Counter-Strike event overview', 'Returns one event's public HLTV overview page by numeric id') and enumerates the payload fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It also names the sibling that produces the id ('Use hltv-events to discover event ids'), which separates it from the list-style siblings without opening a schema.

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 a clear routing rule for obtaining the required id via hltv-events, which is the main 'when to use' question for this tool. It does not state exclusions (e.g. that this is not the right tool for match-level or results data), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Crawlora MCP toolsInspect
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