Crawlora MCP

hltv_match

Read-only

Get Get a Counter-Strike match detail page. Returns one HLTV match by numeric id: both teams with ids, logos and series score; status (finished, live or upcoming); scheduled date in UTC; format (bo1/bo3/bo5), LAN flag and stage from the veto summary; the event id/name/URL; the full map list with per-map score, winner, picked_by, regulation and overtime halves, and the per-map stats page id; the map veto in order (picked, removed or left over); both lineups with player ids, nicknames, real names and roles; the match-total scoreboard stats; and map_stats scoreboards for the captured maps. The trailing slug is cosmetic and optional; HLTV resolves the match by id.

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_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	HLTV numeric match id
`slug`	No	Cosmetic match slug; HLTV resolves the match by 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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior detail about what the response contains (live vs finished status, veto order, lineup roles) and that the slug is cosmetic, but says nothing about failure modes for invalid ids, freshness of live data, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

One long run-on sentence enumerates nearly every field in the response, which duplicates an output schema that already exists and does not earn its place. The opening is also marred by the 'Get Get' duplication, and the purpose statement is buried under the field inventory.

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?

For a single-record read tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is guidance on error handling and how the id is sourced, which is minor given the structured data available.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's note that the match is resolved by numeric id and that slug is 'cosmetic and optional' merely restates the schema, adding no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Get a Counter-Strike match detail page. Returns one HLTV match by numeric `id`.' That is clearly distinguishable from the list-oriented sibling (`hltv_matches`) and other entity tools, though no sibling is named explicitly. The opening 'Get Get' typo slightly degrades polish but not meaning.

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: fetch a single match by id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `hltv_matches` (list) or how to obtain the id in the first place. An agent can infer the workflow, but nothing routes it affirmatively.

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.