Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

nba_play_by_play

Fetch every play-by-play action for a single NBA game in period order, including clock, teams, players, shot results, and running home/away score.

Instructions

NBA play-by-play for one game. Returns every play-by-play action for one game in period order: action number and type, period, an ISO-8601 clock such as PT12M00.00S, team and player identity, the description, shot result and value, and the running home/away score. A full game is about 220 KB, so request it once and page locally rather than polling.

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": {
      "game_id": "<game_id>"
    },
    "name": "nba_play_by_play"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
game_idYesTen-digit game id from nba-scoreboard
end_periodNoLast period to include, 0 to 14; 0 means through the end example(14)
start_periodNoFirst period to include, 0 to 14; 0 means from the start example(0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 well: it discloses the payload volume (~220 KB per game), the ordering guarantee (period order), and a rate-limit-adjacent warning against repeated polling. It stops short of stating error behavior for invalid game ids or what happens with an empty period range.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the return-field enumeration is dense but functional and the paging warning lands last where it is actionable. Slightly list-like in the middle but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes the return payload field by field, which is exactly the missing piece. Combined with the size and ordering hints, an agent has enough to invoke and consume the result correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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 game_id, start_period and end_period are already documented with ranges and examples. The description adds no semantics for the period-window parameters, so the schema baseline of 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 and resource ('NBA play-by-play for one game') and enumerates exactly what comes back — action number/type, period, ISO-8601 clock, team/player, shot result and value, running score. An agent can distinguish this from nba_box_score or the other sports' play-by-play tools without opening a 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 context is implied ('for one game') and there is practical consumption advice ('request it once and page locally rather than polling'), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as the box score siblings, and no note on when period filtering should be applied.

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