Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fanduel_racing_tracks

Retrieve today's racing tracks with country, race count, race types, post times, and current race status; filter by country, race type, track code, finished, or featured.

Instructions

FanDuel Racing tracks today. Returns the tracks racing today (Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Sweden, the U.S. and more) with country, state, race count, race types, whether the card is finished, and the race each track is on (number, minutes to post, post time, status). Filter by country, race type, track code, finished and featured; sort by name, minutes to post, minutes to post of the next wagerable race, or IVR code.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoKeep only these track codes (repeat the parameter or comma-separate), such as `LRL`
pageNoPage number, from 1; default 1, at most 10000
sortNoSort: `name`, `mtp` (minutes to post of the current race), `wagerable_mtp`, `ivr`; default is the service's own order
limitNoItems per page, 1 to 200; default 50
orderNo`asc` or `desc`; default `asc`. Only valid together with `sort`
countryNoKeep only races or tracks in these countries (repeat the parameter or comma-separate): upper-case three-letter codes such as `USA`, `GBR`, `AUS`. Today's codes are listed in the `filters` route's `countries`; lower-case or two-letter values return `400`
featuredNo`true` for the Sportsbook's featured tracks only, `false` for the others; omit for both
finishedNo`true` for tracks whose card is over, `false` for tracks still racing; omit for both
race_typeNoKeep only these race types (repeat the parameter or comma-separate): `T` Thoroughbred, `H` Harness, `Q` QuarterHorse, `L` Thoroughbred LARC
exclude_countryNoDrop these countries (repeat the parameter or comma-separate), same codes as `country`

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.16

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the returned shape (country, state, race count, race types, finished flag, current race status), which is real value given there is no output schema. It never states that this is a read-only list operation, nor anything about pagination behavior, freshness, or limits, which a zero-annotation tool should ideally cover.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the one-line scope statement followed by return fields then filter/sort surface. Dense but every clause maps to something an agent needs; no filler.

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 10-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating return fields and the filterable/sortable dimensions. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only read-only semantics and pagination expectations left implicit.

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 each of the 10 parameters is documented, including enums for race_type and sort, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the same filter and sort vocabulary without adding examples, combination semantics, or precedence rules beyond the schema.

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 ('Returns the tracks racing today') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what payload to expect. The 'today' scope implicitly separates it from fanduel_racing_past_tracks and the singular fanduel_racing_track, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 description says what can be filtered and sorted but never says when to choose this tool over fanduel_racing_track, fanduel_racing_races, or fanduel_racing_past_tracks. The one routing hint ('Today's codes are listed in the filters route') lives in the schema, not the description.

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