Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

cricinfo_rankings

Fetch ICC team or player rankings from a Cricinfo rankings page by passing its canonical URL, returning structured JSON with rank, name, country, rating, points, matches, format, and IDs.

Instructions

Get ICC rankings from Cricinfo. Returns ICC rankings (team or player) from a Cricinfo rankings page, given as the required url, which must be a canonical https://www.cricinfo.com/rankings/... address. Each entry has its rank, name, country, rating, points, matches and format, plus a team or player id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesCanonical Cricinfo rankings URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.16.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (rank, name, country, rating, points, matches, format, id), which is meaningful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about rate limits, auth, or pagination behavior beyond the input constraint.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences; the purpose leads and the return fields follow. There is mild redundancy between "Get ICC rankings" and "Returns ICC rankings," but overall it is efficient.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the input requirement with format, and the key return fields — enough for correct invocation. It lacks usage guidance and any behavioral caveats, but the essentials are present.

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% and the schema already labels the parameter as a "Canonical Cricinfo rankings URL." The description adds a concrete URL pattern (https://www.cricinfo.com/rankings/...), which is a modest increment over the schema rather than substantial new semantics, so baseline 3 fits.

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 — "Get ICC rankings from Cricinfo" — and clarifies it covers team or player rankings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many cricinfo_* siblings, but the verb+resource pairing is precise enough to select it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. cricinfo_records, cricinfo_stats, cricinfo_scores). The only constraint given is on the URL parameter, which is a requirement rather than usage guidance.

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