Batru — Dota 2, Deadlock & Marvel Rivals win predictor

Analyze a game draft visually

analyze_draft

Read-only

Analyze a draft and render an interactive Batru win-rate board.

Use this for visual draft, matchup, win-probability, or next-pick questions
in Dota 2, Deadlock, or Marvel Rivals. It combines the existing prediction
and recommendation tools into one stable structured result. Clients that
support MCP Apps render a compact card; every other MCP client receives the
same data as JSON/text. This tool is read-only.

Dota 2 supports partial drafts and returns a calibrated probability plus
calibrated next-pick win rates. Deadlock and Marvel Rivals only return a
calibrated probability for a complete 6v6; partial drafts still return
counter-pick recommendations labelled as empirical pair-data scores.

Args:
    game: "dota2", "deadlock", or "marvel-rivals".
    my_heroes: Your team / Team 0 heroes (0-5 for Dota, 0-6 otherwise).
    enemy_heroes: Enemy team / Team 1 heroes (0-5 for Dota, 0-6 otherwise).
    my_side: Dota only — whether your team is Radiant or Dire.

Returns the two rosters, prediction status, calibrated win rates when
available, recommendations, metric labels, `source_url`, and `citation`.

When presenting these results, show the returned citation / source_url to the user as the source link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game`	Yes
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`my_side`	No		radiant
`my_heroes`	Yes
`enemy_heroes`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`error`	No
`citation`	No
`my_label`	Yes
`my_heroes`	No
`game_label`	Yes
`source_url`	No
`enemy_label`	Yes
`did_you_mean`	No
`enemy_heroes`	No
`my_win_rate_pct`	No
`recommendations`	No
`prediction_status`	Yes
`enemy_win_rate_pct`	No
`recommendation_metric_label`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral context: MCP Apps render a compact card while other clients receive JSON/text, Dota supports partial drafts with calibrated next-pick win rates, Deadlock/Marvel Rivals require a complete 6v6 for calibrated probability, and partial drafts return labeled empirical pair-data scores. It also states the tool is read-only, matching the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and use cases, then organized into behavior, args, returns, and presentation. It is somewhat long but every section adds operational value; the only minor redundancy is restating read-only when annotations already declare it.

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 tool spanning three games with different capabilities, partial-draft behavior, rendering differences, output fields, and citation handling, the description is remarkably complete. It covers per-game limitations, return contents, and even instructs the agent to surface the citation/source_url to the user, which is especially useful given the large sibling-tool ecosystem.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It provides game enum values, hero count limits per game, team-side semantics for my_heroes/enemy_heroes, and clarifies my_side is Dota-only. The required context parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, so its absence from the Args list is not a significant gap.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze a draft and render an interactive Batru win-rate board,' and enumerates concrete use cases (visual draft, matchup, win-probability, next-pick). It also distinguishes itself from sibling prediction/recommendation tools by saying it 'combines the existing prediction and recommendation tools into one stable structured result.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly names when to use the tool: 'for visual draft, matchup, win-probability, or next-pick questions in Dota 2, Deadlock, or Marvel Rivals.' It explains it is the combined umbrella tool, which implies alternatives like predict_dota_winrate or recommend_dota_pick exist for more targeted queries, though it does not explicitly say 'use those instead when you only need a single number.'

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

All Batru — Dota 2, Deadlock & Marvel Rivals win predictor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by game prefix and metric family (tier list, counters, matchup, synergy, momentum, ban rates), so an agent can generally pick the right one. A few close pairs—counters vs. matchup and recommend vs. predict/batch—have adjacent purposes, and get_more_tools is a vague catch-all, so it is not quite a perfect 5.

Naming Consistency4/5

With a few exceptions the set follows a consistent get_<game>_<metric> / predict_* / recommend_* snake_case pattern. Deviations such as predict_dota_winrate instead of predict_dota_draft, predict_dota_winrate_batch, lookup_hero, and get_more_tools break the otherwise tidy pattern.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the 25+ threshold and makes the server heavy even though the tri-game structure is logical. Many parallel families could be parameterized by game, and get_more_tools adds count without a clear domain purpose.

Completeness4/5

The read-only analytics surface is broadly complete: every game has tier lists, counters, matchups, synergies, momentum, draft prediction, and pick recommendations, plus Dota tournament coverage and a model track record. Gaps are minor—Dota lacks ladder ban rates, Deadlock and Marvel Rivals lack tournament stats and model evaluation ledgers, and their draft advice is only heuristic until six heroes are provided.

Analyze a game draft visually

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources