Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

vlr_team_matches

Retrieve a Valorant team’s VLR.gg match history by team ID, including event, opponent, series score, result, and date, with pagination for completed or upcoming matches.

Instructions

VLR.gg Valorant team match history. Returns a team's complete match history from VLR.gg, 50 per page, newest first: event, stage, opponent, series score, win or loss and date. Use vlr-match with a returned id for map detail, or vlr-team for the roster.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric VLR team id from vlr-rankings, vlr-event or vlr-match
pageNo1-based page number; defaults to 1
groupNoMatch group; one of completed (default), upcoming

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses page size (50 per page), ordering (newest first), and the exact fields returned (event, stage, opponent, series score, result, date). No auth or rate-limit context, but the read-only nature is evident from 'Returns...history'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool, then return contents, then follow-up routing. Every sentence contributes something the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and pagination behavior. For a 3-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the only gap is that the `completed` vs `upcoming` group semantics live solely in the schema.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: '50 per page, newest first' tells the agent how pagination behaves and how results are ordered, which the schema's 'page' description does not provide. The `id` provenance is already covered by the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (returns match history) and resource (a Valorant team's matches at VLR.gg), plus the scope: complete history, newest first. An agent can distinguish it immediately from vlr_matches, vlr_player_matches, or vlr_event_matches.

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 routes follow-up work: 'Use vlr-match with a returned `id` for map detail, or vlr-team for the roster.' That is clear next-step guidance. It does not, however, state when to pick this over sibling history tools, so the selection-side guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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