Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

fanduel_racing_track

Fetch a track's today race card by track code, including race numbers, post times, status, type, surface, class, distance, purse, and runner counts; returns 404 when the track isn't racing today.

Instructions

FanDuel Racing track and its races. Returns one track on today's card with every race it runs: number, post time, minutes to post, status, race type, surface, class, distance, purse and runner count. A code that is not racing today returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesTrack code from the `tracks` route (`tracks[].code`), such as `LRL`

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.16

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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 well: it enumerates the returned fields (number, post time, minutes to post, status, race type, surface, class, distance, purse, runner count) and discloses the 404 failure mode for non-racing codes. It does not state that the operation is read-only or whether the response is paginated, but read-only is strongly implied.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the failure condition. The field enumeration is dense but every item is meaningful return-value information for a tool lacking an output schema.

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, and the description compensates by listing returned fields and the error case. Remaining gaps are minor (time zone of post times, whether the 'card' can be a future day), so it is not fully complete but is sufficient to call 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 schema already explains the `code` parameter and its source. The description still adds constraint-level meaning: the code must belong to a track racing today, otherwise 404 — a semantic restriction not present in the schema. Baseline 3 plus credit for that added constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one track ... with every race it runs') and scopes it to today's card, which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool fanduel_racing_tracks and the individual fanduel_racing_race 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?

'one track on today's card' plus 'A code that is not racing today returns 404' implicitly tells the agent this tool is for today-only track lookups and that stale codes will fail. It doesn't name the alternatives (fanduel_racing_tracks, fanduel_racing_races) explicitly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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