Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

datasets_steam_playercounts_item

Retrieve one stored daily Steam concurrent-player count by app ID and snapshot date, pulling a single record from the Steam player-counts dataset.

Instructions

Get one stored Steam player-count point. Retrieves one daily concurrent-player record using appid and snapshot_date from datasets_steam_playercounts_search.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>",
      "snapshot_date": "<snapshot_date>"
    },
    "name": "datasets_steam_playercounts_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYesSteam app id
snapshot_dateYesSnapshot date, yyyy-MM-dd

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only single-record retrieval and says it returns one daily record, but it does not describe missing-data behavior, authentication, rate limits, or what fields the returned record contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the specific retrieval mechanism.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter item-retrieval tool, and the description covers purpose, lookup keys, and source context. It could be slightly more complete about return contents or missing-record behavior, but no output schema exists and the core invocation information is 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%, so the schema already defines app_id and snapshot_date. The description names both parameters but adds little beyond the schema, and its 'appid' spelling differs slightly from the schema's `app_id`.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it gets one stored Steam player-count point, specifically one daily concurrent-player record. It also names the lookup keys and source collection, making it clearly distinguishable from a search tool.

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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving a single known record using app_id and snapshot_date, and references datasets_steam_playercounts_search as the source of those identifiers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or spell out a search-first workflow, but the usage context is clear.

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