Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

luma_place

Retrieve public details for a Luma place by slug, including name, time zone, coordinates, description, and event metadata.

Instructions

Get a Luma place. Returns public place details from a Luma place page, including its name, slug, time zone, public coordinates, description, and event metadata.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "luma_place"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesLuma place page slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals that only public data is returned and enumerates the payload fields, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, error behavior for an unknown slug, or whether any state is mutated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contents. There is mild redundancy between "Get a Luma place" and "from a Luma place page," but nothing that wastes meaningful space.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both the lookup key and the returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. The main remaining gap is the lack of any routing guidance among the many sibling tools.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description only echoes the schema by calling it a "Luma place page" slug, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond it.

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 ("Get a Luma place") and immediately enumerates the returned fields, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from similarly named siblings such as luma_place_events or luma_place_calendars, so an agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never states when to use this tool versus the many sibling place/event tools, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word "place" and the required slug.

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