Skip to main content
Glama

Batru — Dota 2, Deadlock & Marvel Rivals win predictor

by gg.batru

recommend_deadlock_pick

Read-only

Recommend Deadlock heroes to pick against the given enemy hero(es).

Ranks every hero not yet in the game by REAL observed pair data from
batru.gg's match aggregation: match-weighted win rate against the enemy
heroes, blended with duo win rate alongside your already-picked teammates
(when given). Answers "who counters X (and Y and Z)?" with empirical
numbers, not guesses. Hero names are normalised internally.

This is a pair-stat heuristic, not the calibrated draft model — once both
teams have 6, verify the full draft with predict_deadlock_draft.

Args:
    enemy_heroes: Enemy heroes to pick against (names/aliases, 1-6).
    my_heroes: Optional — heroes your team already has (0-5).
    limit: Max recommendations to return (default 5).

Returns {recommendations:[{hero, score_pct, avg_winrate_vs_enemies_pct,
enemy_matchups:[{opponent, winrate_pct, matches}], ...}]} sorted best-first.
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
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."
my_heroesNo
enemy_heroesYes

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool uses 'REAL observed pair data from batru.gg's match aggregation', ranks 'every hero not yet in the game', and answers with 'empirical numbers, not guesses.' It also specifies to 'Report numbers verbatim' and indicates the presence of 'citation'/'source_url' in the output. This methodology and behavior disclosure goes well beyond the minimum expected given 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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by methodology, usage guidance, argument descriptions, and return format. It is front-loaded with the most important information. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value (e.g., the instruction about presenting the source URL is a concise behavioral note). There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides a detailed return format: '{recommendations:[{hero, score_pct, avg_winrate_vs_enemies_pct, enemy_matchups:[...], ...}]}'. It explains the blending logic for duo win rate, mentions the sort order ('sorted best-first'), and tells the agent to show the citation. It also addresses the draft-context by referring to the sibling 'predict_deadlock_draft'. This makes the tool largely self-contained for an AI agent, although the description could still clarify what happens with invalid hero names.

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 input schema has only 25% description coverage (only 'context' is described). The tool description compensates by explaining the other three parameters: 'enemy_heroes' (names/aliases, 1-6), 'my_heroes' (optional, 0-5), and 'limit' (default 5). It also notes that 'Hero names are normalised internally.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it does not enumerate valid aliases or edge cases. The 'context' parameter is already well-documented in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Recommend Deadlock heroes to pick against the given enemy hero(es).' It explains the methodology (match-weighted win rate and duo synergy) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'predict_deadlock_draft' by noting this is a 'pair-stat heuristic' best used before the full draft is set. The verb 'Recommend' and the resource 'Deadlock heroes' are specific, and the scope ('against the given enemy hero(es)') leaves no ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: it is for getting counter picks during drafting. It explicitly states when NOT to use it: 'once both teams have 6, verify the full draft with predict_deadlock_draft.' This is a direct reference to an alternative sibling tool for the later drafting stage. It also mentions blending duo win rate when teammates are provided, implying the optional usage of 'my_heroes'. The guidance is precise and actionable.

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