Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pgatour_tournament_weather

Retrieve native hourly and daily PGA tournament forecasts using year, slug, and main-tour ID, including wind, humidity, precipitation, and Celsius/Fahrenheit readings.

Instructions

Get PGA tournament weather forecast. Returns native hourly and daily forecasts, source conditions, wind, humidity, precipitation and Celsius/Fahrenheit strings. Reads the tournament overview resource without calculating weather values. Use year, slug and full main-tour ID from tournament-link discovery.

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_weather"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Complete main-tour tournament ID
`slug`	Yes	Native tournament URL slug from link discovery
`year`	Yes	Four-digit native tournament URL year

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool reads the tournament overview resource and returns native forecasts "without calculating weather values," which tells the agent data is passed through rather than derived. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether the read is cached or rate-limited.

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 that are front-loaded with the purpose and return payload, then the sourcing note. Nothing is redundant, though the return-value enumeration is a close paraphrase of what the name already implies.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing the returned forecast granularity (hourly/daily), conditions, wind, humidity, precipitation and unit strings. Combined with the prerequisite input sourcing and the note that values are native rather than computed, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that the ID must be the "full main-tour ID" sourced from link discovery, adding a mild hint about where to obtain values but no new format or constraint detail.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Get PGA tournament weather forecast"), and the second enumerates what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tournament tools (broadcast, course stats, field) by resource type, though no sibling is named 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?

The final sentence gives input-provenance guidance ("Use year, slug and full main-tour ID from tournament-link discovery"), which implies the prerequisite step of link discovery. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over other tournament tools or any exclusion conditions.

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

Deploy Server