Map statistics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Which battle mode to count, random by default. Modes are never pooled: each has its own team size, length and idea of a good result, so every figure in the response belongs to the one asked for. The modes field says which ones hold battles on this map. | |
| slug | Yes | Map slug (e.g. prokhorovka). | |
| region | Yes | Game server region. | |
| language | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description 'Map statistics' reveals nothing about read/write nature, required permissions, rate limits, response shape, or any other behavioral trait beyond the implicit notion of statistics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two words, which is concise but severely under-specified. It is not front-loaded with actionable information; it merely restates the tool name and lacks any structuring that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations) and the many sibling map tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what statistics are returned, how they relate to the mode or region, or how to choose this tool over alternatives like maps_by_slug_ratings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (slug, region, and mode are well-documented; language is not). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, failing to compensate for the undocumented language parameter or clarify how mode affects the statistics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Map statistics' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name; it gives no specific verb or resource scope beyond the word 'statistics' and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like maps_by_slug_ratings or maps_ratings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this tool returns statistics for a map, with no context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.