Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

nfhs_association

Fetch one NFHS Network state association by key/slug to view its about text, colors, social links, coverage, and publisher/producer/championship identities; use nfhs-associations to find the key/slug.

Instructions

Get one NFHS Network state association. Returns one state association or section by its key or slug, including its about text, colours, social links, state coverage and publisher, producer and championship-page identities. Use nfhs-associations to discover the key or slug first.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "nfhs_association"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesAssociation key or slug, for example ghsa or 18bad24aaa

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A4/5.0
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. It does establish this as a single-record read by using "Get" and "Returns one ... by its key or slug," which implies a lookup rather than a mutation. However, it says nothing about what happens with an invalid key, whether the response can be empty, or any auth/rate-limit constraints, leaving a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states the operation, the second states the discovery prerequisite. The long field enumeration in sentence one is justified because there is no output schema, so it is the only place the return shape is described, and it is packed into a single non-repetitive clause.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the operation, the identifier form, the discovery path via the list sibling, and the shape of the returned record. The remaining omission is failure behavior for a bad key, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already names the parameter, marks it required, and supplies both a slug example (ghsa) and an opaque ID example (18bad24aaa). The description's phrase "by its key or slug" restates that duality without adding format, casing, or resolution-order details. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get one NFHS Network state association") and immediately names the scope (single entity, not a list). It goes on to enumerate what the returned record contains (about text, colours, social links, coverage, publisher/producer/championship identities), which lets an agent confirm this is the right retrieval tool without inspecting the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit prerequisite that selects between this tool and a sibling: "Use nfhs-associations to discover the key or slug first." That is real routing guidance for the common case where the key is unknown. The only blemish is that the sibling is written with a hyphen ("nfhs-associations") rather than the actual tool name `nfhs_associations`, and no when-not condition is stated for the case where the key is already known.

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