Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

nhl_gamecenter_play_by_play

Retrieves NHL gamecenter play-by-play for a given game ID, preserving source event order with team and player fields for detailed game analysis.

Instructions

Get NHL game play by play. Returns the upstream gamecenter play-by-play for one NHL game ID, preserving the source event sequence and team/player fields.

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": "nhl_gamecenter_play_by_play"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game_id`	Yes	10-digit NHL game ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing that the data is an 'upstream gamecenter' passthrough that preserves source event sequence and team/player fields, but it says nothing about response size, pagination, or error behavior for an invalid game ID.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract; every clause adds information (source fidelity, scope, preserved fields) with no filler.

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 description adequately characterizes what comes back (upstream event sequence with team/player fields). A brief note on volume or whether the full game is returned in one payload would close the remaining gap.

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% for the single game_id parameter, and the description only restates 'one NHL game ID' without adding format or validity constraints beyond the schema's '10-digit NHL game ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource ('NHL game play by play'), which separates it from siblings like nhl_gamecenter_boxscore and the other leagues' play-by-play tools by league and data type. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'for one NHL game ID' implies per-game scope but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., boxscore vs. play-by-play). The agent must infer usage from the 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