Connect CricketStudio to the assistant you already use, run one investigation end to end, try to break it, then take the same method into your next real analysis.
The question to keep asking: what evidence would change your mind?
These three paths are not the same. Claude Desktop gets CricketStudio's structured tools. ChatGPT and Gemini read CricketStudio's published pages through web search.
| Claude Desktop | ChatGPT | Gemini | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calls CricketStudio tools directly | local MCP | reads web pages | reads web pages |
| Canonical source links | in every tool response | when it searches CricketStudio | when it browses CricketStudio |
| Data freshness | Bundled snapshot, refreshed with each release | Whatever is live on the site | Whatever is live on the site |
| Setup | ~5 min · desktop app + Node.js | ~1 min · any device | ~2 min · any device |
CricketStudio's package runs through npx, which comes with Node.js. In Terminal (Mac) or PowerShell (Windows), run node -v. If you see v18 or higher, move on. If not, install the LTS version from nodejs.org.
In Claude Desktop: Settings → Developer → Edit Config. That opens claude_desktop_config.json:
Mac: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
If the file is empty, replace everything with this. If it already has an mcpServers block, add the cricketstudio entry inside it.
{
"mcpServers": {
"cricketstudio": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "cricketstudio-mcp"]
}
}
}Fully quit (not just close the window), then reopen. In a new chat, open the tools menu: you should see cricketstudio listed. No CricketStudio API key is needed.
Paste this at the start of a conversation, or into a Claude Project's instructions so it applies every time.
This path works because CricketStudio's pages are published for retrieval and citation. ChatGPT is not running CricketStudio's tools here. It finds and reads the pages.
Settings → Personalization → Custom instructions (or a Project's instructions):
For any number that matters, ask for the exact CricketStudio URL behind it, and open it.
In Gemini: Gems → New Gem. Name it something like "Cricket evidence". As with ChatGPT, Gemini reads CricketStudio's published pages. It does not run CricketStudio's tools.
For anything you'd use professionally, open the cited CricketStudio page and check the sample and window yourself.
An assistant can answer cricket questions from memory. Before testing the analysis, check the answers are coming from CricketStudio's evidence.
Don't start with a conclusion. Establish the evidence, narrow the question, test one idea, then try to knock it down. Keep the same conversation open so each step builds on the last.
Not "is this player good?" — first, what does CricketStudio actually hold on them?
A career aggregate can hide the useful story. Compare recent seasons with the longer baseline.
Pick a pattern the evidence suggests — phase, opponent, bowling type, venue or a specific matchup.
This is where looking things up becomes analysis.
The note structure is laid out in step 05.
What exactly is the number, and what is it computed from — which competition, which season, which phase?
How many balls, innings or matches? Would you trust it at that size? CricketStudio withholds rates below its floors.
Is there a canonical CricketStudio page you can open? If not, it isn't CricketStudio evidence.
You're not being tested. CricketStudio is. Use any of these, in any order. A question it can't answer is a useful result.
Single records, matchups, venues and career arcs. Check the number, the window, the sample and the source.
Combine conditions, compare periods, and make the assistant show exactly which subset supports the answer.
Define the question, inspect the evidence, challenge the conclusion, and say how sure you are.
Evidence should survive the move from your screen to a coaching conversation. This structure keeps what you saw separate from what you think it means.
Directly recorded — runs, balls, wickets from ball-by-ball data.
Calculated from observed data — strike rate, economy, phase splits.
From a named outside source, where one applies. Say which.
Your interpretation. Useful — but label it.
Intent, fitness, pressure, captain's instructions. Don't state these as fact.
The real test starts when you stop using our questions. Pick something you actually need to analyse this week, and use CricketStudio as part of the work.
Now use CricketStudio on something that matters to you.
CricketStudio shouldn't replace your cricket judgement. It should give your judgement better evidence to work with.
Your notes are saved only in this browser. Copy them into an email. Nothing is sent automatically.