Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

maxpreps_team_rankings

Fetch ranked MaxPreps team lists for a sport season by national, state, or section scope, returning rank, school, record, rating, and movement to compare teams.

Instructions

MaxPreps team rankings (national, state, section). Returns a ranked team list for one sport season: national, state (stateCode) or section (sectionId) scope, with the rank, school identity, overall record, rating, strength, movement, team size, last-updated time and total ranked count. The source pages with count and page; teamSize is optional and the source returned the same rankings with and without it.

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "allSeasonId": "<allSeasonId>",
      "sportSeasonId": "<sportSeasonId>"
    },
    "name": "maxpreps_team_rankings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoOne-based page number; defaults to 1 example(1)
typeYesRanking scope: national, state or section
countNoPage size from 1 to 100; defaults to 25 example(10)
teamSizeNoOptional on-field team size, for example 11 for football or 5 for basketball example(11)
sectionIdNoSection id; required when type is section (discover it from maxpreps-team or maxpreps-rankings-groupings) example(7bcaf5fa-f8bd-4fe8-a970-f05012cd05b2)
stateCodeNoState code; required when type is state. See maxpreps-states for the complete value set
allSeasonIdYesAll-season id from maxpreps-sports example(22e2b335-334e-4d4d-9f67-a0f716bb1ccd)
sportSeasonIdYesSport-season id for the ranked team season example(2286cd80-c46d-4739-8dd1-92a67ca8daa7)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 reasonably well: it enumerates the returned fields (rank, school identity, record, rating, strength, movement, team size, last-updated, total ranked count). It also discloses that the source pages by count and page and that teamSize returned identical rankings with and without it, a genuinely useful behavioral caveat. It is silent on failure modes if a section id is invalid, but for a read-only rankings lookup the coverage is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and scope, then the return contract. The long comma-separated field list is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema. Slight redundancy in restating the scope options twice.

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 8 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the response shape and pagination and by flagging the teamSize behavior. Conditional requirements (stateCode when type=state, sectionId when type=section) live in the schema rather than the description, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it frames type as the scope selector and explicitly states that teamSize is optional and did not change the source results. That neutrality note is information the schema does not convey and prevents the agent from assuming teamSize filters or alters the ranking.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns a ranked team list') plus the three scopes (national, state, section) for one sport season, which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sibling ranking tools such as bo3_team_rankings or espn_rankings, though it does name maxpreps-team and maxpreps-rankings-groupings as discovery aids (in the schema, not the description).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the scope enumeration: pick national, state or section and supply the corresponding id, which effectively tells the agent which mode to request. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives statement, no mention of when not to call it, and no note about prerequisites beyond what the schema already says.

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