Skip to main content
Glama

Batru — Dota 2, Deadlock & Marvel Rivals win predictor

by gg.batru

get_dota_matchup

Read-only

X vs Y in Dota 2 — who wins the head-to-head, with measured win rate and sample size.

Returns how `hero` performs AGAINST `opponent` (opposite teams) from real
observed games, with the sample size. Empirical data from batru.gg's match
aggregation covering every tracked pair — not a guess. Both names are
normalised internally.

Args:
    hero: Your hero (name/alias/shortName).
    opponent: The enemy hero (name/alias/shortName).

Returns {hero, opponent, winrate_pct, matches}. winrate_pct > 50 means
`hero` beats `opponent` more often than not. Report numbers verbatim.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
heroYes
contextYesExplain 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."
opponentYes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is empirical from batru.gg, 'not a guess,' names are normalized internally, and numbers should be reported verbatim. The mention of citation/source_url adds presentation guidance, though it slightly conflicts with the earlier return shape.

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 the core purpose and remains mostly efficient. It includes useful detail like return format, interpretation, and presentation rules. A small deduction is warranted because of the inconsistency between the declared return object and the later citation/source_url instruction, plus the Args section omitting the required context parameter.

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 read-only matchup tool with no output schema, the description explains return fields, winrate interpretation, data source, and output presentation. However, it omits the required context parameter from its Args list and gives an incomplete/possibly inconsistent return shape (missing citation/source_url). These are meaningful but not fatal gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description carries the burden for hero and opponent. It does this well by explaining that both accept names, aliases, or shortNames and clarifying the directional relationship. The context parameter is not described in the tool description, but the schema itself provides extensive context guidance, so the combined coverage is strong.

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 gets a head-to-head matchup between hero and opponent in Dota 2, with win rate and sample size. It explicitly uses 'AGAINST `opponent` (opposite teams)' and 'head-to-head,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like synergy or momentum.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need a hero-vs-hero matchup outcome from real games. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_dota_counters, get_dota_synergy, or predict_dota_winrate. The guidance is decent but not explicitly comparative.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources