Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

mlb_statcast_first_base_receiving_details

Retrieve per-play first base receiving records for an MLB player, including outcome codes, receiving OAA, expected out rate, and field coordinates for defensive analysis.

Instructions

Get a player's First Base Receiving play records. Returns per-play records backing an individual first-base receiving leaderboard row, including game/play ids, outcome codes, receiving OAA, expected out rate, timing, and field coordinates. This is tabular JSON; the separate 3D skeletal visualization route is excluded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
minNoMinimum opportunities
typeNoLeaderboard group
limitNoRows per page, 1-500
offsetNoZero-based row offset
team[]NoMLB team ids
dateEndNoInclusive end date (YYYY-MM-DD)
split[]NoGroup dimensions
minSplitNoGrouped opportunity threshold
season[]NoSeason values
dateStartNoInclusive start date (YYYY-MM-DD)
player_idYesPositive MLB player id
splitYearNoYear split selector
gameType[]NoGame types
bin_time_X10[]NoTime bins
fielder_3_handNoFirst baseman batting hand
throw_pos_id[]NoThrowing position ids
runners_on_cd[]NoBase occupancy codes
throw_height_code[]NoThrow heights
min_height_in_inchesNoMinimum fielder height
is_hit_into_play_field_outNoField-out flag
throw_location_code_full[]NoThrow outcomes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.9

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it declares the output format ('tabular JSON') and enumerates the returned fields (game/play ids, outcome codes, receiving OAA, expected out rate, timing, field coordinates), and rules out a nearby route. It stops short of noting pagination behavior or auth constraints, which for a 21-param endpoint would be useful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; each sentence adds a distinct fact (what it returns, the format, the excluded route). No filler.

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 21-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload and format, and the schema covers all inputs. Minor gaps remain around pagination semantics and the relationship to the leaderboard sibling, but nothing essential for a correct call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines every parameter including enum meanings. The description adds no per-parameter semantics (e.g., how min/minSplit interact or what 'type' grouping does), 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+resource ('Get a player's First Base Receiving play records') and immediately scopes it as the per-play detail layer 'backing an individual first-base receiving leaderboard row'. This cleanly separates it from the aggregate leaderboard sibling mlb_statcast_first_base_receiving without opening the schema.

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 only implied via the 'backing a leaderboard row' framing — the agent must infer that this is the drill-down for a leaderboard row rather than the leaderboard itself. The one explicit routing statement ('the separate 3D skeletal visualization route is excluded') is a when-not, but the primary alternative (the leaderboard tool) is never named as such.

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