Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

nba_player_dash_pt_shots

Retrieves an NBA player's tracking shot dashboard, returning overall and breakdown result sets for a specified player and season.

Instructions

NBA player tracking shot dashboard. Returns one player's tracking shot dashboard as several result sets (overall, and the tracking breakdowns the upstream returns). The endpoint rejects a trimmed query with HTTP 500, so the full dashboard scope set is always sent.

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": {
      "player_id": "<player_id>"
    },
    "name": "nba_player_dash_pt_shots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`season`	No	Season in YYYY-YY form; defaults to the current NBA season
`per_mode`	No	Aggregation
`league_id`	No	League id; only 00 (NBA) is verified
`player_id`	Yes	Player id from nba-players or nba-team-roster
`season_type`	No	Season type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the response is several result sets (an overall set plus upstream tracking breakdowns), and the endpoint returns HTTP 500 on a trimmed query so the full scope set is always sent. It omits read-only confirmation, pagination, and any limits, but the 500 disclosure is non-obvious and valuable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool, then response shape, then the operational constraint. Every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical 'overall, and the tracking breakdowns the upstream returns' is slightly vague.

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?

Five parameters, one required, and no output schema, so the description should say something about returns: it does, by naming multiple result sets. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies how the dashboard differs from the sibling shot endpoints, which matters given the crowded namespace.

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 enums and defaults already documented, so the schema handles parameter meaning. The description adds only an indirect note that trimming the query fails, which explains why the scope parameters are effectively fixed, but it never references player_id or season directly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns one player's tracking shot dashboard. The player scope implicitly distinguishes it from nba_team_dash_pt_shots, but nothing differentiates it from the similarly named nba_player_pt_shot sibling, so the agent must guess between them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives such as nba_player_pt_shot or nba_team_dash_pt_shots. The only usable cue is the phrase 'tracking shot dashboard,' leaving selection between near-identical siblings to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server