Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

vlr_search

Search VLR.gg for teams, events, or players by name and return matching IDs, URLs, logos, event dates, prize pools, and inactive/replacement team details.

Instructions

VLR.gg search for teams, events and players. Searches VLR.gg for teams, events and players by name and returns every match on one page: kind, id, name, canonical URL and logo, plus the event date range and prize pool and, for retired teams, the inactive flag and the team that replaced them (successor). type limits the search to teams, events or players; the default all returns all three groups with per-group counts. Use the returned id with vlr-team, vlr-event or vlr-player.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch text, 1 to 100 characters
typeNoResult group; one of all, teams, events, players; defaults to all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.18

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields (kind, id, name, canonical URL, logo, event date range, prize pool, inactive/successor for retired teams) and that all matches fit on one page. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error cases, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the `type` semantics, then the handoff. It is a single dense paragraph that is somewhat long but every sentence contributes; minor verbosity in the middle.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by describing the return payload and the id-based navigation to detail tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that default `all` returns all three groups with per-group counts, which the schema does not state. The `q` parameter is left to the schema's 1-100 char note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (VLR.gg teams, events, players by name), and distinguishes itself from the vlr-team/vlr-event/vlr-player siblings by naming them as the follow-up detail tools. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus the per-entity siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says to use the returned id with vlr-team, vlr-event or vlr-player, giving a clear workflow handoff. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., preferring a direct detail tool when the id is already known), but the navigation context is strong.

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