Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Batru — Competitive Game Intelligence for AI Agents

by gg.batru
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fetch

Read-only

Fetch the full live document behind a search result id.

Ids look like `dota2:counters:axe`, `deadlock:tier-list`,
`marvel-rivals:synergy:mantis`, `lol:counters:aatrox`, `deadlock:ban-rates`,
`dota2:tournament:ti-2026` or `model:track-record`.

Returns {id, title, text, url} where `text` is the document's data as
JSON (measured win rates / ranks with sample sizes). Report the numbers
verbatim and cite `url`.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesA document id exactly as returned by search.
contextYesExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"A document id exactly as returned by search."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"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.\""New value: +"Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\""
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's main contribution is the return shape, which matters since there is no output schema. That contribution is undercut by an internal inconsistency: it says the return is `{id, title, text, url}` but then instructs showing `citation` / `source_url`, fields not in the stated shape, leaving the agent unsure what to cite.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the id formats are grouped compactly, and nothing is padded. The closing citation sentence partially restates the earlier 'cite `url`' instruction, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return value and the expected handling of numbers verbatim, which is the right material for this simple two-parameter tool. The `url` vs `citation`/`source_url` discrepancy is the one completeness gap an agent would notice at call time.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description earns credit by exemplifying the `id` format with six concrete patterns (`dota2:counters:axe`, `deadlock:tier-list`, `model:track-record`), which tells an agent what a well-formed id looks like beyond the schema's 'exactly as returned by search' note.

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+resource pairing, 'Fetch the full live document behind a `search` result id,' which tells an agent exactly what it retrieves. It names the upstream sibling (`search`) but does not distinguish itself from the specialized getters (`get_counters`, `get_tier_list`, etc.), so it stops short of a 5.

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 through the dependency on a `search` result id, so an agent can infer the search-then-fetch sequence. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the many topic-specific getters in the sibling list, which is a meaningful ambiguity given that overlap.

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

All Batru — Competitive Game Intelligence for AI Agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources