Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

hltv_team

Fetches a Counter-Strike team's public HLTV profile by numeric ID, including rankings and current roster, so you can verify team details and player roles.

Instructions

Get a Counter-Strike team profile. Returns one team's public HLTV profile by numeric id: name, country, logo, canonical URL, the team's current HLTV and Valve ranking positions (with regional rank when shown), and the current five-player roster with player ids, nicknames, real names, profile URLs and in-game roles when HLTV publishes them. The trailing slug is cosmetic and optional; HLTV resolves the team by id. Use hltv-rankings to discover team ids.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "hltv_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	HLTV numeric team id
`slug`	No	Cosmetic team slug; HLTV resolves the team by id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the lookup is by numeric id only, that the data is public HLTV profile data, that the slug is cosmetic and ignored for resolution, and that roster roles appear only 'when HLTV publishes them.' It does not describe behavior for an unknown or invalid id (error vs empty), which is the main remaining disclosure gap for a lookup tool with no annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contents, then the id-resolution caveat and the sibling pointer — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The single return-value sentence is long and list-like, but every listed field is informative for an agent deciding whether this tool answers its question.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so field by field, including the conditional role field. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read lookup; only failure/empty-roster behavior is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description's parameter-level content ('the trailing slug is cosmetic and optional; HLTV resolves the team by id') largely restates the schema text for both `id` and `slug`. The only added value is the pointer to hltv-rankings for id discovery, which is usage guidance rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a Counter-Strike team profile') and then enumerates exactly what the profile contains: name, country, logo, URL, HLTV/Valve ranking positions, and a five-player roster with ids and roles. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from sibling lookups like hltv_rankings or hltv_player 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?

It gives a clear discovery path ('Use hltv-rankings to discover team ids'), which tells the agent how to obtain the required id and which sibling to use first. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. searching by team name via hltv_search), so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server