Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wta_rankings

Retrieve WTA player and team rankings with ranks, points, tournament counts, movement, and identity; filter player views by date and preserve published ranking dates.

Instructions

Get WTA player or team rankings. Returns native ranks, points, tournament counts, movement and player identity. Player views preserve the actual published rankedAt value. Team rows retain both players and do not fabricate a ranking date.

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": {
      "view": "<view>"
    },
    "name": "wta_rankings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	No	Requested date YYYY-MM-DD; player views only; omission uses latest publication
`page`	No	Zero-based native page
`sort`	No	Sort direction; defaults to asc for players or desc for teams
`type`	No	Native sort key; supported values depend on view
`view`	Yes	Native ranking view
`country`	No	WTA code from country discovery; player views only; ALL omits nationality
`page_size`	No	API page size, 1 to 50

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

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 does disclose useful non-obvious behavior — that player views do not fabricate rankedAt and that team rows retain both players and no synthetic date. That is genuine data-integrity context, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, and what happens when a requested date has no publication.

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 the core purpose, then return contents, then the two data-fidelity notes. Efficient and readable overall, though the final two sentences both restate the same date-integrity theme and could be merged into one.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, listing the returned fields is helpful, but the definition never explains what distinguishes the four views or how 'at' interacts with race vs standard views. Pagination and default sorting are left entirely to the schema, leaving moderate gaps for a moderately complex tool.

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 view, at, country, page, page_size, sort and type, including the 'player views only' constraints and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond those fields, so 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 WTA player or team rankings') and enumerates what is returned (ranks, points, tournament counts, movement, player identity). It does not name or differentiate against any sibling ranking tool, and 'team' is ambiguous given the view enum only contains singles/doubles/race variants, but the resource is unmistakable.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no explanation of how to choose between singles, doubles, race-singles and race-doubles views. The sentences about player vs team rows imply a distinction exists but give no selection criteria or prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the enum.

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

Deploy Server