Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wta_tournament_matches

Retrieve a WTA tournament match-feed snapshot by group ID and season, returning native match, score, timing and participant rows with preserved states and ID formats.

Instructions

Read a WTA tournament match-feed snapshot. Returns all rows in the published native response with professional match, score, timing and participant fields. Optional states is a unique CSV of U,L,C from match-state discovery. No local date/type filtering, sorting, bracket updates or incremental cursor is added. Raw MatchState codes and padded EventID/MatchID strings are preserved.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "year": "<year>"
    },
    "name": "wta_tournament_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	Yes	Native season from tournament season discovery
`states`	No	Unique comma-separated native query states U,L,C; omit for the source default
`group_id`	Yes	Native tournament group ID from the calendar

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it declares the response is an unfiltered native passthrough ('all rows'), that no local filtering, sorting, bracket updates or incremental cursor is applied, and that raw MatchState codes and padded EventID/MatchID strings are preserved. It leaves out auth/rate-limit context, but the non-behavioral claims are exactly what an agent needs to avoid assuming server-side convenience features.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape then negative capabilities then data-fidelity detail; nothing is padded. The final sentence about padded IDs is niche but genuinely load-bearing for a raw-passthrough tool.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (match/score/timing/participant fields), what is not done (no filtering, sorting, cursoring), and value fidelity. The main residual gap is that the concrete shape of the 'native response' is left abstract, but this is reasonable for a passthrough snapshot.

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 coverage is 100%, so year, group_id and states are already documented in the input schema, including the 'omit for the source default' behavior and the U,L,C enumeration. The description restates the states CSV and its origin from match-state discovery but adds no format, validation or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb (Read) and resource (WTA tournament match-feed snapshot), and the second scopes the payload to match, score, timing and participant fields. It implicitly separates itself from draw/order-of-play siblings by ruling out bracket updates, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the call for pulling match rows for a given group_id/year, and the reference to 'match-state discovery' hints where the states values come from. There is no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives statement and no prerequisite conditions.

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

Deploy Server