Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pgatour_tournament_overview

Retrieve PGA Tour tournament facts, course details, and champion history using canonical year, slug, and full tournament ID; ticket links and preference fields are omitted.

Instructions

Get PGA Tour tournament overview. Returns native tournament facts, courses and individual champion history. Ticket purchase links and account preference fields are omitted. 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_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Full native main-tour tournament ID, for example R2026457
`slug`	Yes	Canonical main-tour tournament URL slug from schedule
`year`	Yes	Canonical tournament URL year, matching the full ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the return contents, names fields that are deliberately omitted (ticket purchase links, account preference fields), and draws a scope boundary around other tours and team-event variants. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or pagination, but the disclosure of omissions and scope is substantive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then omissions, then input provenance, then scope exclusions. No filler, though the closing 'local contract' phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy relative to its practical meaning.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return contents, and it states the input provenance and the boundary conditions. For a three-required-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only cross-tool routing guidance is thin.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already documents its canonical form and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the provenance constraint (all three must come from tournament-link discovery) and implies the year must match the full ID, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Get PGA Tour tournament overview') and enumerates what it returns: native tournament facts, courses, and champion history. That content list distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like course_stats, field, or past_results, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a real prerequisite — supply canonical year, slug, and full ID obtained from tournament-link discovery — and excludes other tours and team-event variants. However, it never says when to pick this tool over tournament_field, tournament_course_stats, or tournament_past_results, so routing depends on inferring from the return-content list.

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

Deploy Server