Skip to main content
Glama

vlr_results

Read-only

Returns completed Valorant matches from VLR.gg, newest first, 50 per page, with final series scores, winner flags, event, stage and whether stats or VODs are listed. Optional page (1 to 500); has_more says whether older pages exist. Use vlr_match with a returned id for map and player statistics.

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": "vlr_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoOptional 1-based page number; defaults to 1.

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond readOnly/openWorld annotations: fixed page size of 50, newest-first ordering, the 1-500 page cap, and a has_more flag for older pages. It also discloses per-row flags (winner, has stats, has VODs), which tells the agent what to expect before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then pagination, then the handoff to vlr_match; no filler sentences. The opening clause carries a long list of returned fields, but every item conveys something the agent would otherwise guess at.

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?

Complete for a one-parameter listing tool with an output schema: purpose, ordering, page size, pagination limits, and the next-step tool for detail are all present, and return values needn't be re-explained given the existing output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the real constraint the schema omits: valid page range is 1 to 500. That single detail prevents an out-of-range call and is genuinely additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns completed Valorant matches from VLR.gg') plus ordering (newest first) and page size (50), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never distinguishes itself from the close sibling 'vlr_matches', so the agent can't be fully sure which listing tool to pick.

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?

Explicitly routes follow-up work: 'Use vlr_match with a returned id for map and player statistics', which is clear context for the detail step. It gives no exclusion or contrast against the sibling listing tools, so when-to-use vs 'vlr_matches' remains an inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.