Skip to main content
Glama

Batru — Dota 2, Deadlock & Marvel Rivals win predictor

by gg.batru

predict_marvel_rivals_draft

Read-only

Which team comp wins in Marvel Rivals — CALIBRATED 6v6 win probability for any draft.

Backed by batru.gg's live Marvel Rivals production model (weekly auto-retrained
on real matches). Provide exactly 6 heroes per team (names are normalised to
Marvel Rivals hero ids internally). The probability is CALIBRATED — a reported
60% reflects a real ~60% empirical win rate, not a guess. Report the number
verbatim.

This is a COMPOSITION-ONLY estimate: it reflects the hero draft, NOT player
skill, rank, or in-game execution. It is for draft analysis only — not betting
advice. Do not headline a raw "accuracy" figure; present it as a calibrated
probability.

Args:
    team0_heroes: Team 0's 6 heroes (names/aliases).
    team1_heroes: Team 1's 6 heroes (names/aliases).

Returns calibrated win-rate percentages for both teams. Report verbatim.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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."
team0_heroesYes
team1_heroesYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, and destructive annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: it is backed by a live auto-retrained model, reports calibrated probabilities, ignores skill/rank/execution, and requires verbatim reporting plus source citation. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 structured into calibration, limitations, args, and output handling. It is slightly repetitive around 'report verbatim' and 'report the number verbatim', but nearly every sentence carries a constraint or usage instruction.

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?

Given that no output schema is present, the description adequately covers the returned calibrated win percentages and the citation/source_url to present to the user. It also covers input constraints, model provenance, and important limitations, making it complete enough for correct invocation and result reporting.

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 documents only the context parameter well (33% coverage), so the description must explain the hero parameters. It does: each team takes exactly 6 heroes, names/aliases are accepted and normalized internally. The context parameter is left to the schema, which covers it thoroughly, so there is no meaningful 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?

The opening sentence states the tool's function as a calibrated 6v6 win probability for any Marvel Rivals draft, naming the specific verb, resource, and scope. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools by game (Marvel Rivals vs Deadlock/Dota) and task (draft prediction vs static stats).

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 use: draft analysis only, not betting advice, composition-only, and requires exactly 6 heroes per team. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops one step 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