Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Crawlora MCP

by net.crawlora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

modrinth_file_version

Read-only

Resolve one Modrinth file hash to the version that contains it and return that version's native object with its project id, version number, loaders, game versions and file hashes. Pass a SHA-1 (40 hexadecimal characters) or SHA-512 (128 hexadecimal characters) hash and optionally its algorithm; omit algorithm for native auto-detection. An unknown hash returns 404.

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": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "modrinth_file_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesRequired file hash: 40 hexadecimal characters for SHA-1 or 128 for SHA-512.
algorithmNoOptional hash algorithm, sha1 or sha512; omit it for native auto-detection.

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

A3.8/5.0
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 description's added value is the 404-on-unknown-hash contract and the auto-detection fallback for the algorithm, both genuine behavioral facts not in the annotations. It stops short of noting rate limits or that the returned object is Modrinth's native unmodified shape beyond naming fields.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result before the parameter and error details. Minor redundancy in repeating the hash-length rules already in the schema, but no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs, auto-detection behavior, the error case, and the shape of the returned version object. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret a 404 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the 40/128 hex-character rules and the 'omit algorithm' behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load and the description adds no new syntax or edge cases for the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Resolve one Modrinth file hash to the version that contains it') and even enumerates the returned fields (project id, version number, loaders, game versions, file hashes). It never names a distinguishing alternative such as modrinth_file_versions or modrinth_version, so the 5-tier sibling-differentiation bar is not met.

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?

It gives clear invocation context for the hash parameter (SHA-1 vs SHA-512 lengths, omit algorithm for auto-detection) and the failure case (unknown hash returns 404). However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling version-lookup tools, which is left to inference.

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