Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fussballde_club_search

Search FUSSBALL.DE clubs by name, postcode, or place to retrieve club IDs, names, cities, postal codes, and logos for lookup and verification.

Instructions

Search FUSSBALL.DE clubs by name or place. Searches FUSSBALL.DE clubs by club name, postcode or place, or both (both must match), and returns each club's id, name, postal code, city and logo. The first page reports the total hit count; page with limit (1 to 100, default 20) and offset, and final marks the last page. Zero results is a valid response. The site's search is not fuzzy and matches a club's official name (for example RasenBallsport Leipzig, SC Freiburg), so a looser display name such as RB Leipzig can return nothing: search by place or one distinctive word, or use the club_id that every team, table and match row already carries.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoClub name or part of it; text or place is required
limitNoClubs per call, 1 to 100, default 20
placeNoPostcode or place name; text or place is required
offsetNoNumber of clubs to skip, 0 to 2000, default 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.16

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses return fields (id, name, postal code, city, logo), pagination behavior (first page reports total, limit 1–100 default 20, offset, final marks last page), and that zero results is a valid response. It also warns that the underlying search is not fuzzy and matches official club names, which materially affects invocation strategy.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds pagination and matching caveats in a logical order. Every sentence contributes useful information: return fields, total/final pagination signals, zero-result validity, and non-fuzzy matching advice. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description explicitly lists the returned club fields and explains pagination metadata. It also covers edge cases like zero results and non-fuzzy naming, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret its response without further documentation.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that text and place are combinable and that when both are used, both must match. It also clarifies the non-fuzzy official-name matching behavior relevant to the text parameter. Range and default details for limit/offset are largely repeated from the schema, but the combined matching semantics are a genuine addition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search FUSSBALL.DE clubs by name or place.' It clearly states the search domain and return fields, so an agent understands the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling fussballde_club or fussballde_team_search-like tools, leaving that distinction to the tool name alone.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: search by name, postcode, place, or both. It also states the crucial constraint that if both text and place are supplied, both must match. It names fallback strategies when a loose name fails ('search by place or one distinctive word, or use the club_id'), which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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