Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Crawlora MCP

by net.crawlora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

hltv_search

Read-only

Get Search HLTV for players, teams and articles. Runs HLTV's public site search and returns its result groups. Each group has a name (for example Player, Team or Article) and items; every item has a type (player, team, article, event or match), numeric id, name, canonical url and slug. Player items carry their country; team items carry a logo_url; article items carry the publication date and the author with the author profile author_url. The query is required (up to 100 characters) and is echoed as query. Use this to resolve a name to the ids that hltv-player, hltv-team, hltv-event and hltv-match accept.

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": "hltv_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch term, 1-100 characters

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

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, so the safe-read, external-site profile is known. The description adds that results come back as named groups with typed items, which is useful structural context, but it says nothing about result caps per group, empty-result behavior, or failure modes when HLTV is unavailable. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the tool is described in one tight paragraph rather than scattered fragments. However, a large middle stretch enumerates return fields (`country`, `logo_url`, `date`, `author_url`) that the output schema already supplies, which is wasted space in a one-parameter tool's 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?

For a single-parameter search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what it does, how results are shaped, and where the ids are consumed. The only real omissions are per-group result limits and empty-query/no-match behavior; return-value detail is arguably redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required `query` parameter already documented as "Search term, 1-100 characters." The description echoes the 1-100 character limit and adds that the query is returned back as `query`, which is a marginal gain over structured fields. 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Runs HLTV's public site search") and enumerates the entity types returned (players, teams, articles, events, matches). It also implicitly separates itself from the detail siblings by positioning itself as the id-resolution step, though the opening phrase "Get Search HLTV for..." is slightly garbled and takes a second read.

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?

The final sentence gives concrete when-to-use guidance: "Use this to resolve a name to the ids that hltv-player, hltv-team, hltv-event and hltv-match accept," which tells the agent this is the lookup step before calling detail tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. when an id is already known) or what to do when search returns nothing.

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