Skip to main content
Glama

Batru — Dota 2, Deadlock & Marvel Rivals win predictor

by gg.batru

get_dota_tier_list_by_rank

Read-only

Get the Dota 2 hero tier list for a specific rank bracket.

The meta differs a LOT by skill level — heroes that stomp Herald games can
be poor in Immortal. Data comes in four bands: Herald & Guardian,
Crusader & Archon, Legend & Ancient (merged pairs — the source has no finer
grain), and Divine & Immortal ("highrank").

Args:
    rank: A rank name — one of herald, guardian, crusader, archon, legend,
        ancient, divine, immortal (or a band key like "herald-guardian").
    limit: Max number of heroes to return (default 20).

Returns {bracket, total_matches, generated_at, heroes:[{hero, rank,
winrate_pct, pick_rate_pct, matches}]} sorted best-first. Report numbers
verbatim and mention which band the numbers come from.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rankYes
limitNo
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."

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
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 description builds on that by adding behavioral details: the data comes in four merged rank bands, numbers should be reported verbatim, and a citation/source_url must be shown to the user. This adds value beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by context, args, return format, and presentation guidance. Each sentence adds essential information without wordiness, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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 read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers input semantics, return structure, and even post-processing instructions. The only omitted parameter is 'context', but that is fully specified in the schema, so the tool is complete from an agent's perspective.

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?

The schema only provides a full description for the 'context' parameter, leaving rank and limit with minimal info. The description compensates by explaining rank values and band keys, and by defining limit as max heroes returned. Context is already well-covered in the schema, so no redundancy.

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 begins with a precise statement: 'Get the Dota 2 hero tier list for a specific rank bracket.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and the additional context about rank bands distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dota_tier_list.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool by explaining that the meta differs by skill level and listing the rank bands. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.

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