Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

hltv_search

Search HLTV for players, teams, events, matches, and articles, returning typed IDs and URLs to resolve names for player, team, event, and match lookups.

Instructions

Search HLTV for players, teams and articles. Runs HLTV's public site search and returns its result groups. Each group has a name (for example Player, Team or Article) and items; every item has a type (player, team, article, event or match), numeric id, name, canonical url and slug. Player items carry their country; team items carry a logo_url; article items carry the publication date and the author with the author profile author_url. The query is required (up to 100 characters) and is echoed as query. Use this to resolve a name to the ids that hltv-player, hltv-team, hltv-event and hltv-match accept.

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": "hltv_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch term, 1-100 characters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 well: it discloses that it runs HLTV's public site search, that results are grouped, the shape of groups and items, that the query is required and capped at 100 characters, and that the query is echoed back. It omits rate limits, failure behavior, or result caps, which keeps it short of 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the routing hint comes last, which is the right order. The middle sentence enumerating per-type fields is dense but justified because there is no output schema; still, it reads as a field dump rather than tight prose.

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?

For a single-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it searches, how results are grouped, what fields each item type carries, and how to consume the ids downstream. Nothing material is missing.

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 there is only one parameter whose schema already says 'Search term, 1-100 characters'. The description's note that the query is required and up to 100 characters merely restates structured data, so no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search HLTV for players, teams and articles') and then explicitly differentiates from siblings: 'Use this to resolve a name to the ids that hltv-player, hltv-team, hltv-event and hltv-match accept.' An agent can distinguish this lookup tool from the direct-entity tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition: resolving a name into ids accepted by the sibling entity tools. It does not state any exclusion (e.g. 'do not use if you already have the id') or describe search-quality edge cases, but the positive guidance is unambiguous.

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