Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

pgatour_tournament_field

Retrieve a PGA Tour tournament’s complete field and alternate lists with status and qualifying metadata using its year, slug, and full tournament ID.

Instructions

Get PGA Tour tournament field and alternates. Returns the complete native field and alternate lists, status and qualifying metadata. It does not equate field membership with leaderboard rows. Supply canonical year, slug and full tournament ID from tournament-link discovery. Other tours and team-event variants are not qualified by this local contract.

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": {
      "year": "<year>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "pgatour_tournament_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFull native main-tour tournament ID, for example R2026457
slugYesCanonical main-tour tournament URL slug from schedule
yearYesCanonical tournament URL year, matching the full ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses what the response contains (complete native field plus alternates, status, qualifying metadata) and warns that field membership must not be conflated with leaderboard rows. It remains silent on pagination, response size, or error behavior for oversized fields, which are the main residual gaps for a read tool.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, payload, semantic caveat, input provenance/scope), with the core purpose front-loaded. Slight deduction for jargon like "qualified by this local contract," which is less immediately parseable than a plain statement of supported scope.

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 three-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents and input provenance adequately. Minor incompleteness remains around result volume and whether alternates are always present, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples and constraints, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine provenance value by specifying that these canonical values must come from tournament-link discovery and that the year must match the full ID, which reduces invalid-call risk beyond what the schema conveys.

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 PGA Tour tournament field and alternates") and then enumerates the payload: native field, alternate lists, status and qualifying metadata. It explicitly separates itself from leaderboard semantics ("It does not equate field membership with leaderboard rows"), so an agent can distinguish it from pgatour_leaderboard without opening either 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 states a clear prerequisite: the year, slug and full tournament ID must be canonical values obtained from tournament-link discovery, which directs the agent to pgatour_tournament_links first. It also states a scope exclusion for other tours and team-event variants. It stops short of naming explicit alternative tools or when-not-to-call conditions beyond that scope note.

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