Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

faceit_player_rank

Get a FACEIT player's ranked position for a specific game and region, using all-time or optional season-aware ranking; returns null when no rank exists.

Instructions

FACEIT player ranked position in one game and region. Returns one player's position in a game and region ranking, either the all-time ranking or a season-aware ranking when season is set. A nickname is resolved to its user id first, so a nickname request costs one extra upstream lookup. Position is null when the player has no rank there. Exactly one of nickname and user_id is required.

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": {
      "game": "<game>",
      "region": "<region>"
    },
    "name": "faceit_player_rank"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game`	Yes	Game slug, one of the values returned by faceit-games.
`region`	Yes	Region code such as EU or NA; see faceit-regions for the documented values.
`season`	No	Optional season number; when set the season-aware ranking is read.
`user_id`	No	Optional FACEIT user UUID; exactly one of nickname and user_id is required.
`nickname`	No	Optional FACEIT nickname; exactly one of nickname and user_id is required.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses that a nickname is resolved to a user id first, costing one extra upstream lookup, and that position is null when the player has no rank in that game/region. It omits any mention of auth or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the four sentences are short and mostly non-redundant. The second sentence partially restates the first, which is the only wasted space.

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 5-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the crucial semantics: the null-position outcome, season behavior, and the nickname resolution side effect. It does not characterize the rest of the returned payload beyond the position value, which is the remaining gap.

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, and the description adds genuine value on top: the extra-lookup cost of nickname is not visible in the schema, and the season parameter's effect on which ranking is read is restated in outcome terms. The 'exactly one of nickname and user_id' constraint is duplicated from the schema, so it does not add further credit.

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 result: a FACEIT player's ranked position within a given game and region, with all-time versus season-aware variants spelled out. It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic player-profile lookup, but it never names a sibling (e.g. faceit_player or faceit_leaderboard) to make the boundary explicit.

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 is implied rather than stated: the agent learns that setting season switches to season-aware ranking and that nickname vs user_id is an either/or choice. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over faceit_player or the leaderboard tools, and no stated prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server