Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

nba_team_pt_shot

Retrieve NBA team shooting statistics as one row per team, including overall and three-point splits. Filter by season, season type, and aggregation mode.

Instructions

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only vaguely implies a read operation via 'Returns.' It gives no information about season defaults, rate limits, permissions, or whether the result is paginated, and 'the shooting line' is left undefined as to which columns appear.

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, so the description is literally doubled with zero added information. Beyond the duplication it is short and reasonably front-loaded, but the repetition is a clear structural defect.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and 'one row per team with the shooting line' does that at a high level. However, it never clarifies what 'split overall and from three' yields column-wise, nor how the aggregation and season-type parameters alter the result, leaving gaps for a four-parameter analytical tool.

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% and each of the four optional parameters is documented in the schema itself (season format, per_mode enum, league_id restriction, season_type enum), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how per_mode or season_type change the output, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and shape: 'team shooting table: one row per team with the shooting line, split overall and from three.' That is enough to separate it from player- or opponent-oriented siblings by implication, but it never names a sibling such as nba_opp_pt_shot or nba_player_pt_shot to draw the boundary explicitly.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. An agent must infer from the name and the word 'team' that this is the team-grain version rather than the player or opponent version, and nothing tells it which sibling to pick for shot locations or dashboards.

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