F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenancePulls golf data from Arccos, GHIN, and 18Birdies, and generates interactive HTML and PDF round reports with shot maps and stats via local MCP tools.
-
GolfCore
by org.golfcore
Server Details
Scorecards, tee yardages, USGA ratings and green contour maps for 30,000 golf courses worldwide.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 100.0% over 21 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-06-18
- URL
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of an agent confusing it with another tool. Its purpose is clearly search-based and fully self-contained.
Naming Consistency4/5
The single tool is named with a clear, purpose-revealing verb, so there are no inconsistencies to evaluate. With only one tool, however, there is no broader naming pattern to validate.
Tool Count3/5
A one-tool server feels thin even if the search tool is intentionally broad. The tool covers a lot of ground, but a minimalist MCP surface like this is borderline for a full golf-course data domain.
Completeness4/5
The search tool covers course lookup, place/country aggregation, scorecards, and even meta questions about GolfCore itself. The main gap is that detailed green figures are explicitly left to external course pages rather than returned by the tool.
Available Tools
1 toolsearchSearch GolfCoreAInspect
Search everything GolfCore holds for 30,000 golf courses in 153 countries. Ask by course name ('Pebble Beach'), by slug ('pebble-beach'), by place ('golf courses in Fife', 'Monterey'), or about GolfCore itself ('what does a caddie master use GolfCore for'). A course comes back with its address, town, region, country, coordinates, timezone, phone and website; flags for what GolfCore has mapped -- lidar green contours, a traced map of fairways, tees, greens, bunkers and water, a live wind grid, a scorecard, USGA ratings; and, when scope includes scorecards, its full card: par, yardage and stroke index for every hole, and yardage, par, course rating and slope rating for every tee, separately for men and women. Places come back as the town, region or country page that counts and lists every course there. Pages come from GolfCore's own site. Every result carries the url to cite, and a course's page carries the green figures this tool does not: greens mapped, contour count and interval, largest green elevation span, steepest measured slope, and tree canopy.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per scope. Default 5, maximum 20. | |
| query | Yes | What you are looking for, in plain English. | |
| scope | No | Optional. Narrow the search to these scopes: 'slug' treats the query as a GolfCore course slug and returns that exact course, 'courses' matches courses by name and town, 'scorecards' attaches each course's per-hole card and tee ratings to it, 'city', 'region' and 'country' return pages that count and list every course in a place, 'product' returns GolfCore's own pages. Omit to search all of them. Combine freely, e.g. ["slug","scorecards"] for one exact card, or ["city","courses"]. Leave 'scorecards' out when you only need to know which courses exist; the cards are large. |
TDQS
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so thoroughly: exactly what a course result includes, what place pages return, that results cite GolfCore URLs, and which green-specific metrics this tool does not provide. Nothing about the result shape is left to guesswork.
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?
The description is a dense, long paragraph rather than a scannable structure, but every sentence earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded. A little restructuring would help, but there is no fluff.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does so in detail, covering courses, place pages, scorecards, source pages, and explicit exclusions. For a search-oriented tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call it appropriately.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by giving concrete examples for the query parameter and reinforcing scope combinations. It also warns that scorecard cards are large, which helps an agent decide what to request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (search) over a defined resource (everything GolfCore holds for 30,000 courses in 153 countries), while enumerating query types and result categories. Even with no sibling tools, its scope is unmistakable and far more informative than the title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit query patterns (course name, slug, place, product) and practical within-tool guidance such as leaving out scorecards when only course existence is needed. Since there are no sibling tools, this is the right kind of usage direction to provide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
search
Related MCP Connectors
Live golf tee time availability across US courses. Search by location, date, players, and price.
Search disc golf courses worldwide, find nearby courses, and retrieve course details and updates.
Read-only US golf course, scorecard, equipment, deal, and golf-trip data for AI agents.
Golf equipment catalog, live retailer prices and daily price history. Keyless search, free key.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAnalyzes your Trackman golf data to diagnose weaknesses and generate personalized practice plans with drills and progress tracking, acting as a data-driven coach.832 PyPI1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceTournament software for tennis, padel, pickleball and more: fair draws, live standings, scores and dropout handling.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceUS drone airspace intelligence and mission planning. 24 MCP tools: check airspace restrictions across 11 FAA data layers, plan grid/orbit/corridor surveys, validate Part 107 compliance, generate pre-flight briefings, and export to KML/GPX/QGC/Litchi/WPML.253MIT
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.