Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

speedrun_level_leaderboard

Fetch an individual-level leaderboard for a specified game, category, and level, returning native places, tied runs, and board context.

Instructions

Get a Speedrun individual-level leaderboard. Returns native places, tied runs and game/category/level context. top counts places, not runs. IDs come from game/category/level discovery; platform/region use catalog discovery. Game variables expose value IDs and scope; requested variables are checked against this board's native applicable-variable embedding. No local ranking or synthetic pagination is performed.

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": {
      "game": "<game>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "level": "<level>"
    },
    "name": "speedrun_level_leaderboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	Top places, 1–200; API response-budget limit, ties can return more runs
`date`	No	Run date cutoff YYYY-MM-DD
`game`	Yes	Native game ID
`embed`	No	Native metadata embeds
`level`	Yes	Native level ID from game level discovery
`region`	No	Native region ID from catalogs
`timing`	No	Native timing method; omission uses source default
`category`	Yes	Native category ID appropriate to this board
`platform`	No	Native platform ID from catalogs
`emulators`	No	Omit for both; true for emulators, false for real devices
`variables`	No	JSON object mapping native variable IDs to value IDs
`video_only`	No	Require a video when true; omission uses source default

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 behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that top counts places rather than runs (so ties can inflate the response), that results are native placements with no local ranking or synthetic pagination, and that requested variables are validated against the board's applicable-variable embedding. It omits error/validation failure behavior and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Sentences are front-loaded with the purpose first, then behavioral constraints, with essentially no filler. Some phrasing is dense API jargon ('native applicable-variable embedding') that costs an agent a re-read, but nothing is redundant.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what a result set represents (native places, ties), that no pagination is synthesized, and how variables are matched. It stops short of describing the return payload shape or default behavior for the optional filters, which would round it out.

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%, so the schema already documents top, its 1-200 range, tie behavior, ID sourcing, timing, and variable format. The description largely restates that (top counts places, IDs from discovery) and adds only marginal new meaning via the variable-applicability check, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a Speedrun individual-level leaderboard) and scopes it to level boards via the required game/category/level keys, which separates it from speedrun_game_leaderboard. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 tells the agent where IDs come from (game/category/level discovery for board keys; catalog discovery for platform/region) and that variables must be checked against this board's applicable set, which is useful routing context. It does not say when to pick this tool over speedrun_level_records, speedrun_level_detail, or the game-level leaderboard.

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

Deploy Server