Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Crawlora MCP

by net.crawlora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

nba_lineup_shot_chart

Read-only

Get Returns the shot chart for one team's five-man lineups: one row per lineup shot with the lineup id, the game, the shooter, the period, action and shot type, the zone, distance, court coordinates and the made flag. Returns the shot chart for one team's five-man lineups: one row per lineup shot with the lineup id, the game, the shooter, the period, action and shot type, the zone, distance, court coordinates and the made flag.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nba_lineup_shot_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoOptional period selector; 0 is the verified value and means the whole game.
seasonNoOptional season in YYYY-YY form, for example 2026-27. Defaults to the current NBA season.
team_idNoRequired team id from nba-standings, for example 1610612738.
league_idNoOptional league id; only 00 (NBA) is verified.
season_typeNoOptional season type; defaults to Regular Season.
group_quantityNoOptional lineup size; only 5 is verified and is the default.
context_measureNoOptional shot-chart base event; FGA or FG_PCT are verified. Defaults to FG_PCT.

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered; the description adds the row-per-lineup-shot grain and enumerates returned fields. It says nothing about volume, pagination, ordering, or how large a lineup shot chart can get, which matters for an open-world data pull. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is the same sentence pasted twice verbatim, and it opens with the malformed fragment "Get Returns". The first clause is informative, but half the text is pure duplication and the leading typo obscures the verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the structured data carries most of the load, so the description only needs to establish the grain and routing. It establishes the grain but omits any sibling routing and wastes half its length on duplication, leaving it adequate rather than complete.

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 every parameter already carries its own meaning (period 0 = whole game, only 5 verified for group_quantity, FGA/FG_PCT for context_measure). The description adds no parameter guidance whatsoever, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns the shot chart for one team's five-man lineups") plus the exact grain ("one row per lineup shot"), which distinguishes it from a plain team or player shot chart. It never names the sibling nba_shot_chart explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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: 'five-man lineups' scopes the call to lineup-level data, letting an agent infer this is not the player-level or team-level shot chart tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid team_id from nba-standings.

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