Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

serebii_pokemongo_spotlight_hours

Retrieve historical Serebii Pokémon GO Spotlight Hour archive rows to review past event labels; dates are source labels, not current or future schedules.

Instructions

List Serebii Pokémon GO Spotlight Hour archive rows. Returns rows from Serebii's historical Spotlight Hour table. The source dates are labels and do not represent a current or future schedule.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "serebii_pokemongo_spotlight_hours"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully state that the data is historical and that labels must not be read as a live schedule, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about row volume, ordering, pagination, or failure modes for a tool with no parameters.

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?

The description is front-loaded and brief. The second sentence largely restates the first by repeating that rows come from Serebii's historical table, which costs a little space without adding new information.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and call: what the rows are, that they are archival, and that the dates are labels. A hint about row shape or ordering would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals that the tool needs no input filtering, which is the relevant fact.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource: 'List Serebii Pokémon GO Spotlight Hour archive rows.' That is unambiguous about what it returns, but it doesn't compare itself against siblings like serebii_pokemongo_events, which covers the current event list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: calling it returns historical archive data, and the note that 'dates are labels and do not represent a current or future schedule' steers the agent away from using it for current schedules. No alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition is named.

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