Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

motogp_circuit_wins

Retrieve MotoGP circuit win records by circuit UUID and category name, including rider identities, times, finishing positions, and pagination metadata.

Instructions

Get native MotoGP circuit win records. Mirrors the circuit first-place-frequency resource. Preserves source rider identities, times, finishing position1, order and pagination metadata. Lowercase category names are a separate namespace from result-category UUIDs. Empty MotoE data can be valid even when native pagination totals are nonzero.

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": {
      "circuit_uuid": "<circuit_uuid>",
      "category_name": "<category_name>"
    },
    "name": "motogp_circuit_wins"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
circuit_uuidYesNative result-circuit UUID from result event metadata
category_nameYesNative circuit-statistics category name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 substantial work: it discloses which fields are preserved (rider identities, times, finishing position, order, pagination metadata) and flags a real edge case — empty MotoE data being valid despite nonzero pagination totals. It also warns that lowercase category names live in a different namespace than result-category UUIDs. Missing only auth/permission and rate-limit context, which is a minor gap for a read-style lookup.

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 each following sentence adds a distinct fact (source parity, returned fields, namespace caveat, empty-data caveat) with no filler. The phrasing is dense and slightly jargon-heavy, and "finishing position1" reads as a typo, which costs a point.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: the resource being read, the identity of the returned records, the presence of pagination metadata, and the MotoE empty-result quirk. It stops short of stating whether results are bounded or how ordering is applied, but nothing essential to 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form, setting the baseline at 3. The sentence about lowercase category names being a separate namespace from result-category UUIDs does add genuine disambiguation value about what category_name accepts versus circuit_uuid, nudging it slightly above the baseline but not enough to be a full 4.

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?

"Get native MotoGP circuit win records" gives a specific verb and resource, and "Mirrors the circuit first-place-frequency resource" pins down exactly which slice of circuit statistics is returned. It is implicitly distinguishable from motogp_circuit_poles and motogp_circuit_records by the word "win", but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named even though motogp_circuit_poles and motogp_circuit_records sit right beside it. The only usage-adjacent content is "Mirrors the circuit first-place-frequency resource", which hints at the data source rather than telling an agent when to pick this tool over a sibling.

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