Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

motogp_starting_grid

Read a published MotoGP starting grid after validating season, event shortname, and category, returning native positions, times, riders, teams, and penalty text without recalculating order.

Instructions

Read a published MotoGP starting grid. Reads the native season/shortname/category grid after validating its GP event context. Preserves native grid order, positions, times, professional rider/team data and optional penalty text. Biography and media fields are excluded. No qualifying-order calculation, row regrouping, entry reconciliation or local filters are added.

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": {
      "season_year": "<season_year>",
      "shortname": "<shortname>",
      "category_name": "<category_name>"
    },
    "name": "motogp_starting_grid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shortnameYesExact native GP event shortname, up to four characters, from entry/grid options
season_yearYesNative season_year from entry/grid options
category_nameYesExact native category label from the same starting_grid option tuple

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the tool reads native data, validates event context, preserves grid order/positions/times/rider-team data and optional penalties, excludes biography/media fields, and performs no calculations or filters. It does not cover error behavior or output format, but for a read-only tool this is strong.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently packs scope, behavior, and exclusions into four sentences. The list of negatives ('No qualifying-order calculation...') is useful but slightly dense; overall it earns its place.

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?

Given 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what data is preserved and excluded, and that validation occurs. It lacks details on return structure (e.g., array vs. object) and error handling, but an agent can call it correctly.

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 documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that these are native season/shortname/category values from entry/grid options, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Read') and resource ('published MotoGP starting grid'), and clarifies it preserves native data without calculations or filters. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like motogp_entry_grid_options, but the scope is clear.

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?

The description implies usage by saying it validates GP event context and excludes calculations, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The parameter descriptions hint that entry/grid options are needed first, but that is not stated in the tool description itself.

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