Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

sportskeeda_wiki_issues

List public opened or closed issues for a Sportskeeda Wiki article by slug, with submitter IP addresses omitted. Filter by status, page, or limit.

Instructions

List reported issues for a Sportskeeda Wiki page. Returns public opened or closed issues for one Wiki article. The upstream also returns submitter IP addresses; this endpoint deliberately omits them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page
slugYesHost-free Wiki page path_slug from sportskeeda-wiki-pages
limitNoIssues per page
statusNoIssue status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.9

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the burden but does add real value: it discloses that only public opened/closed issues are returned and that submitter IPs are deliberately stripped upstream. It still omits auth requirements, pagination behavior across the page/limit params, and default ordering.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; the third sentence (IP omission) earns its place as privacy-relevant behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, filtering semantics, and a notable data-omission caveat. Pagination defaults and auth context are the only real gaps, and the page/limit params partially cover the former.

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% (page, slug, limit, status all documented, status with an enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'opened or closed issues' loosely echoes the status filter but adds no syntax or format detail 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 (List) and resource (reported issues for a Sportskeeda Wiki page), which is clearly distinct from sibling read tools like sportskeeda_wiki_activity, sportskeeda_wiki_article, or sportskeeda_wiki_contributors. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast any sibling, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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 only implied: you call it to fetch issues for one Wiki article, and the slug hint ('from sportskeeda-wiki-pages') implies a prerequisite lookup step. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no note on combining with the article/activity endpoints, and no exclusions.

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