Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pgatour_tournament_tee_times

Retrieve PGA Tour tournament tee times by year, slug, and full tournament ID, returning rounds, groups, professional player identities, source tee times, and timezone.

Instructions

Get PGA Tour tournament tee times. Returns all native rounds, groups and professional player identities with source tee times and timezone. 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_tee_times"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0

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 disclosure burden; it does reasonably well by enumerating the returned entities (rounds, groups, professional player identities, source tee times with timezone) and declaring coverage limits. It is silent on pagination, error behavior, freshness/live-vs-final data, and whether the call is a pure read with no side effects — gaps that matter 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return shape before prerequisites and scope limits. Slightly compressed jargon ("local contract", "native" rounds) costs a bit of immediate understandability but nothing is padded.

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?

With three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies what it needs to: acquisition route for the IDs, expected payload contents, and the boundary of the tournament domain it covers. Remaining gaps are operational details (pagination, live vs. completed tournaments) rather than anything blocking correct invocation.

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% and the schema already explains each of the three identifiers with an example ID format, so baseline is 3. The description adds provenance meaning beyond the schema: these must be canonical values obtained through tournament-link discovery, and year must match the full ID, reinforcing a cross-parameter consistency constraint.

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?

A concrete verb-plus-resource statement ("Get PGA Tour tournament tee times") that also names what comes back: native rounds, groups, player identities, tee times and timezone. It is meaningfully scoped away from other content ("Other tours and team-event variants are not qualified"), though it distinguishes itself from siblings only by exclusion and by an oblique reference to "tournament-link discovery" rather than by naming the tool.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite path for invocation: three canonical identifiers must come from tournament-link discovery, which points the agent at the upstream tool. It also gives a when-not-to-use signal by declaring other tours and team-event variants out of contract, but it does not name a specific alternative tool for those cases.

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

Deploy Server