Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

vlr_rankings

Fetch VLR.gg Valorant team rankings for a selected region, including rank, team, country, rating, record, streak, earnings, and last match; set limit to return 1–250 teams.

Instructions

VLR.gg Valorant team rankings by region. Returns VLR.gg's team ranking for one region: rank, team, country, rating, record, streak, earnings and last match. region is one of north-america, europe, brazil, asia-pacific, korea, china, japan, la-s, la-n, oceania, mena, gc, collegiate. limit returns the top 1 to 250 teams (default 50).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of top teams to return, 1 to 250; defaults to 50
regionNoRanking region; one of north-america, europe, brazil, asia-pacific, korea, china, japan, la-s, la-n, oceania, mena, gc, collegiate; defaults to north-america

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.18

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by listing return fields and parameter constraints, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, data freshness, rate limits, or whether the ranking is live versus cached.

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 with the tool purpose and then supplies return fields and parameter details. It is efficient overall, though it duplicates the full region enum and limit constraints already present in the schema.

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 simple two-parameter ranking tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned fields, enumerates valid regions, and states the limit range. It stops short of explaining when to choose this over related VLR.gg tools or how fresh the data is.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the region enum and limit range/default, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns VLR.gg Valorant team rankings for one region. It is clear what the tool does and scopes it to a single region, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other VLR.gg tools such as vlr_team or vlr_stats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It never says to prefer this over vlr_team for rankings or vlr_stats for statistics, leaving usage inference entirely to the agent.

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