Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

hltv_events

Retrieve Counter-Strike event calendars with ongoing, featured, and month-grouped upcoming matches, including event IDs, dates, status, type, prize pools, locations, and listed teams.

Instructions

Get the Counter-Strike event calendar. Returns HLTV's public event calendar: ongoing events, featured events, and the month-grouped upcoming list. Each event has its numeric id, canonical url, name, status (ongoing or upcoming), type (for example LAN, Intl. LAN, Online), start/end dates in UTC when published, prize pool and location when the card shows them, and the top participating teams when listed. Use hltv-event with an id from this response for one event's overview.

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": "hltv_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the data is public, grouped by month, and that fields such as dates, prize pool, location, and teams appear only 'when published' or 'when listed' — i.e., optionality is exposed. It omits read-only confirmation, caching/pagination behavior, and failure modes, keeping it below a 5.

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 front-loads the tool's purpose, then enumerates return fields, then closes with the handoff instruction — a logical order with no filler. The field enumeration sentence is dense and long, which slightly hurts scannability but every element listed is informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly with field-level detail and enum-like values for status and type. What remains unstated is scale (how many months of upcoming events) and whether the response is paginated or cached, leaving a small gap for a zero-parameter data-fetch tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its space on return-shape semantics, which is the right allocation here.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the Counter-Strike event calendar') and immediately scopes the content to ongoing, featured, and month-grouped upcoming events. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling hltv_event tool, which handles a single event by id.

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?

It explicitly routes follow-up work: 'Use hltv-event with an id from this response for one event's overview,' which tells the agent when to switch tools. It does not state exclusions (e.g., that this is not a results or match-scores source), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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