Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

nba_opp_pt_shot

Returns per-team opponent shooting stats, split overall and from three, to compare defensive shooting allowed across the league.

Instructions

Returns the league's opponent shooting table: one row per team with the shooting it allows, split overall and from three. Returns the league's opponent shooting table: one row per team with the shooting it allows, split overall and from three.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nba_opp_pt_shot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seasonNoOptional season in YYYY-YY form; defaults to the current NBA season.
per_modeNoOptional aggregation.
league_idNoOptional league id; only 00 (NBA) is verified.
season_typeNoOptional season type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 behavioral burden, and it only partially discharges it. 'Returns' implies a read-only lookup, and the stated grain ('one row per team') plus the split across overall and three-point shooting gives useful shape information in the absence of an output schema. Nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, caching, or whether the table is static versus season-dependent, which are the remaining gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is repeated verbatim, which is pure waste and makes the definition look malformed. Stripped of the duplicate, the remaining sentence is well front-loaded and efficient, but the repetition is a real structural defect rather than a stylistic quibble.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-annotation, four-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does supply the result grain and column split, which is the most valuable missing piece. It still omits safety/profile cues and any indication of how the parameters change the returned table. Adequate to call correctly, incomplete for deciding when to call it.

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%, with all four optional parameters documented in-schema including defaults and enum values, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, not even which of season, per_mode, or season_type most affects the split shown. The schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the league's opponent shooting table') and pins down both grain and semantics: 'one row per team with the shooting it allows, split overall and from three.' That 'shooting it allows' phrasing distinguishes it from a team's own shooting splits, so an agent can separate it from teammates like nba_team_pt_shot or nba_player_pt_shot without extra inference. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The description tells the agent what the table contains but not under what conditions to pick this over the team- or player-level shooting tools. An agent must infer the choice from the resource name alone.

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