Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

formula1_json_team_assembly

Fetch a Formula 1 team's complete editorial assembly by numeric key or slug, including SEO copy, images, shop link, video stories, galleries, and related article/video payloads.

Instructions

One Formula 1 team's editorial assembly. Returns one team's full editorial assembly payload exactly as the API sends it: the team key and identifier, SEO copy, profile and logo images, shop link, profile text, vertical video stories, gallery images and the related article/video assemblies. Use either key (the numeric teamKey from formula1-json-editorial resource=constructor-listing) or identifier (the team slug), never both.

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": "formula1_json_team_assembly"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoNumeric team key from the constructor listing, such as 543 example(543)
identifierNoTeam identifier (lowercase letters, numbers and hyphens) such as mercedes example(mercedes)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description still signals a read-style passthrough ('Returns ... exactly as the API sends it') and lists the returned data. It omits explicit read-only/side-effect confirmation, auth/rate-limit behavior, and error handling, including what happens if neither optional parameter is supplied.

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 description is compact and front-loads the payload scope, then ends with the key/identifier usage rule. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the payload enumeration and parameter rule both carry useful information.

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 complex editorial payload with no output schema, the description enumerates the main return components and explains the two alternative identifiers. It is nearly complete, but the neither-parameter case and safety/error context are left unaddressed.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds the important exclusivity rule ('never both') and identifies the source resource for the numeric key. It does not clarify behavior when neither optional parameter is provided.

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 states a specific verb/resource ('Returns one team's full editorial assembly payload') and enumerates the payload components, so the editorial scope is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like formula1_team or formula1_json_editorial, leaving sibling differentiation mostly implicit.

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 by the editorial-payload framing: an agent can infer this is for full team editorial content. The definition gives the prerequisite source for `key` and says to use either key or identifier, never both, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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