Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

bo3_team_recent_matches

Retrieve a CS2 team's recent matches, including opponents, tournaments, maps, and player stats; filter by opponent for head-to-head history or by tournament for a single event.

Instructions

BO3.gg team recent matches. Returns a CS2 team's newest matches (up to 30) with, for every match, the opponent, the tournament, the rounds played, each map played in order and every player's line (rating, kills, deaths, assists, damage, first kills and deaths, trade kills and deaths, headshots, hits, shots, accuracy, money saved and equipment value). Filter by opponent for head-to-head history or by tournament for one event. Date windows are not supported upstream; the newest matches come first and the list does not page past 30.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesTeam slug, for example vitality
limitNoNewest matches to return, 1 to 30, default 10
opponentNoOpposing team slug for head-to-head matches, for example natus-vincere
tournamentNoTournament slug from bo3-tournaments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.18

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the 30-item cap, that newest matches come first, that date filtering is unavailable upstream, and that the list does not page past 30. It omits error behavior for an unknown slug and whether filters further shrink the result set, but the core operational constraints are stated.

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, then the return shape, then filtering semantics, then the upstream limits — a sensible order with no filler. The middle sentence enumerating fifteen per-player stats is long, though it is justifiable given there is no output schema to document return values.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly down to individual player stat fields. No annotations exist either, and the 30-item cap and no-pagination constraint are disclosed. Only edge cases such as invalid slugs or slug discovery (bo3_team) are left unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the 1-30 range and default. The description adds minimal semantics beyond that — it explains the intent behind `opponent` (head-to-head history) and `tournament` (one event), but adds nothing new for `slug` or `limit`. Baseline 3 applies 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 gives a specific verb and resource — returns a CS2 team's newest matches — plus a hard ceiling of 30 results, which separates it from player-level siblings like bo3_player_recent_matches. It never names a sibling tool or states whether bo3_match_history is the alternative for older/date-scoped matches, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It clearly states how to use the optional filters — `opponent` for head-to-head history, `tournament` for a single event — which is real usage guidance an agent can act on. It also warns that date windows are unsupported upstream. What's missing is any exclusion or alternative: nothing says when to prefer bo3_match_history or bo3_match_games instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools