search_playersSearch Dota 2 players by persona (display) name. Returns matching account IDs and similarity scores. OpenDota keyless data; may be empty if rate-limited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Persona / display name to search for. | |
| limit | No | Max players to return (default 10). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 5,
+ "name": "Arteezy"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "N0tail"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it mentions OpenDota is keyless (no authentication needed) and that results may be empty due to rate-limiting. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies the data source and a common failure mode.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, target, return value, and an important caveat.
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?
Though there is no output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned (account IDs and similarity scores) and includes a rate-limit caveat. Given the tool's simplicity and the rich annotations, this is sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'persona (display) name' largely echoes the schema's parameter description, and it does not add meaning to the 'limit' parameter. The description contributes minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Dota 2 players by persona name'), and clearly distinguishes its function from siblings like get_player by focusing on search-by-name with similarity scores. It is concise and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage (search when you need to find players by name) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_player or state when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternate tools, so the guidance is only implicit.
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.