Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

wta_tournament_order_of_play

Retrieve a WTA tournament's native order of play by group ID and season, returning structured days, courts, match sequence, participants, and date/offset fields without timezone conversion.

Instructions

Read a WTA tournament order of play. Decodes the whole native order-of-play resource into structured objects, preserving source days, courts, match order, participant structures, display/ISO dates and court UTC offsets. Native null schedules remain null. Personnel and unreviewed fields are excluded. No generated calendar, latest-day calculation or timezone conversion is performed.

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_order_of_play"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYesNative season from tournament season discovery
group_idYesNative tournament group ID from the calendar

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 does well: it discloses that native null schedules stay null, that personnel and unreviewed fields are excluded, and that no generated calendar, latest-day calculation, or timezone conversion is performed. These are substantive behavioral boundaries beyond what the schema provides, though it does not mention required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with what the tool does and follows with the preserved field list and explicit exclusions, with no filler sentences. The middle enumeration of preserved fields is dense but each item clarifies return content, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return-shape information (days, courts, match order, participant structures, display/ISO dates, UTC offsets, null preservation) and the key behavioral caveats (no timezone conversion, no latest-day calculation). An agent can call this correctly and anticipate the response shape without opening anything else.

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 both required parameters (year, group_id) are already documented as native season and native tournament group ID. The description adds no further meaning about parameter format, valid ranges, or how the two combine to identify a tournament, 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read a WTA tournament order of play") and immediately narrows scope by explaining it decodes the native order-of-play resource into structured objects with days, courts, and match order. This is enough to separate it from siblings like wta_tournament_draws or wta_tournament_matches, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 context is implied by the scope statements (native schedule only, no generated calendar or latest-day calculation), which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice for derived or timezone-converted schedules. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over wta_tournament_draws, wta_tournament_matches, or wta_tournament, leaving routing to inference.

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