Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

yahoo_sports_tennis_rankings

Retrieve ATP/WTA singles or doubles rankings from Yahoo Sports by selecting a category, returning rank, points, player, country, and age.

Instructions

Yahoo Sports tennis rankings. Returns an ATP/WTA singles/doubles ranking list (rank, points, player name, country, age), from Yahoo Sports' own server-rendered rankings page. The type enum accepts mens-singles, womens-singles, mens-doubles, and womens-doubles. No stable player id is available in this list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesRankings type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "mens-singles",
+  "womens-singles",
+  "mens-doubles",
+  "womens-doubles"
+]
  2. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the source ('Yahoo Sports' own server-rendered rankings page') and a data caveat ('No stable player id is available'), but it does not mention pagination, freshness, limits, or other behavioral traits.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then output fields, source, enum values, and caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only rankings tool, the description is largely complete: it names the output fields, the accepted enum values, the source, and a key data limitation. It could additionally state list length or currency, but those are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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%, and the schema already documents the single `type` parameter with its enum values. The description repeats those enum values but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns an ATP/WTA singles/doubles ranking list' with concrete fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tennis tools by naming rankings as the resource, versus schedule or scoreboard.

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?

The description makes it clear the tool is for rankings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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