Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

fever_cities

Search Fever's city index by name to retrieve matching city records with IDs, city codes, country, region, coordinates, and thumbnails for plan and filter queries.

Instructions

Search Fever cities by name. Searches Fever's (feverup.com) city index and returns the matching city records grouped by the upstream's own suggestion type: city id, city code (pass it to fever-plans and fever-filters), name, country, region, slug, language, centre coordinates and thumbnail. Matching is Fever's own fuzzy name match, so search by name (new york, london) rather than by a bare city code: a three-letter code query that matches nothing falls back to the whole top-city list instead of reporting no results. No public route enumerates every Fever city; fever-top-cities is a fixed 25-city seed and this search is the way to reach the rest.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "fever_cities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesCity search text, e.g. new york
localeNoLocale for results, defaults to en-US

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that matching is Fever's own fuzzy name match, that a non-matching three-letter code query silently falls back to the entire top-city list instead of returning empty, and that no public route enumerates all cities. Those are non-obvious behaviors an agent could otherwise misread as a bug or as complete coverage.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose first, then returned fields, then the matching caveat and coverage note. It is dense but every sentence contributes; the returned-field enumeration is slightly long but substitutes for a missing output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating what a city record contains and how results are grouped by suggestion type. Combined with the fuzzy-match and fallback warnings, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 both parameters are already documented; the description nonetheless adds real semantics by framing `query` as fuzzy name text rather than an identifier and steering city codes to other tools. Locale behavior is left entirely 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search Fever cities by name") and immediately scopes it as Fever's city index, listing the record fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the city-index siblings by naming fever-top-cities and explaining the difference in coverage.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states how to query (by name, e.g. new york, london) and warns against the failure mode of querying by bare three-letter code. It routes downstream use of the city code to fever-plans and fever-filters and clarifies that fever-top-cities is only a 25-city seed while this search reaches the rest.

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