Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Crawlora MCP

by net.crawlora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

hltv_player

Read-only

Get Get a Counter-Strike player profile. Returns one player's public HLTV profile by numeric id: nickname, real name, country, age and date of birth when published, canonical URL, current team (id, name, logo) when the player is on a team, and the role-rating rows HLTV shows (Rating 3.0 plus Firepower, Entrying, Trading, Opening, Closing, Sniping and Utility scored out of 100). The trailing slug is cosmetic and optional; HLTV resolves the player 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_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesHLTV numeric player id
slugNoCosmetic player slug; HLTV resolves the player 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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds useful behavioral detail: the profile is public, several fields are conditionally present ("when published", "when the player is on a team"), and the slug is cosmetic because resolution is by id. It does not say what happens on an unknown or invalid id (empty result vs error), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening is duplicated ("Get Get a Counter-Strike player profile") and a large share of the text enumerates return fields that an existing output schema already covers. The key constraint (resolution by id, slug optional) is present but buried at the end of a long return-value list.

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 annotations, an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description is close to complete for a straightforward single-entity lookup. The missing pieces are how to obtain a valid id and how missing/invalid ids are surfaced, both of which an agent would want before calling.

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, and the description's note that `slug` is cosmetic and HLTV resolves by id largely restates the schema text. It adds no format hints or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb+resource ("Get a Counter-Strike player profile") and scopes it to a single player resolved by numeric `id`, which is enough to separate it from team/event/match siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not (e.g. hltv_search for finding an id), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as hltv_search for discovering an id or hltv_team for team-level data. The only usage-adjacent statement is that `slug` is optional, which is parameter guidance rather than tool selection 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