Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

faceit_banlist

Retrieve a page of public FACEIT ban records with user, reason, and ban dates, then use the returned cursor to fetch subsequent pages or filter by reason.

Instructions

FACEIT public ban list page. Returns one page of the public FACEIT ban list: ban id, banned user id and nickname, avatar, country, reason, start and end timestamps and duration. Paging uses the upstream's size parameter (5-100, default 25) and the opaque cursor returned with the previous page; pass it back to advance. A cursor from the upstream is echoed in the response.

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": "faceit_banlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	Optional page size, 5-100; default 25.
`cursor`	No	Optional opaque cursor copied from the previous response; omit for the first page.
`reason`	No	Optional ban reason, one of: ban evasion, cheating, multiple accounts, platform abuse, smurfing, toxicity, playing on a smurf (see faceit-ban-reasons).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key traits: this is a public read-only list, results are paged via an upstream size parameter, and the opaque cursor is echoed in the response. It stops short of stating whether a next-cursor indicator is returned when the list is exhausted, and mentions nothing about rate limits or auth, which are minor for a public endpoint.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and return fields, then paging, then cursor echo — a sensible order with no filler. The final sentence about the cursor being echoed partly restates the paging sentence, a small redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers paging end-to-end for a three-parameter list tool. The main gap is that it never says whether the response signals more pages are available, which matters for driving the cursor loop correctly.

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 genuinely adds cursor lifecycle semantics — that the cursor is opaque, comes from the previous response, and is echoed back — which the schema only hints at. The reason parameter's enumeration is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('public FACEIT ban list page') and enumerates the returned fields (ban id, user id, nickname, avatar, country, reason, timestamps, duration), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling faceit_banlist_stats, leaving the agent to infer which one produces per-ban records versus aggregates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage guidance is operational rather than selectional: it explains how to page (pass the returned cursor, omit it for the first page, size 5-100, default 25). There is no statement of when to prefer this over faceit_banlist_stats or how the reason filter relates to faceit_ban_reasons, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative dimension is only implied.

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

Deploy Server