champion_rotationsFree champion rotation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| freeChampionIds | No | Free champion IDs | |
| maxNewPlayerLevel | No | Max level for new player rotation | |
| freeChampionIdsForNewPlayers | No | Free champion IDs for new players |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "platform": "na1"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "freeChampionIds": {
+ "description": "Free champion IDs",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "freeChampionIdsForNewPlayers": {
+ "description": "Free champion IDs for new players",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "maxNewPlayerLevel": {
+ "description": "Max level for new player rotation",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these hints, such as data freshness, rate limits, or the scope of the rotation (e.g., what region the platform refers to).
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 extremely short (3 words) but at the expense of informativeness. While it is concise, it is under-specified and does not earn its place given the lack of detail.
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?
Despite the existence of an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description provides no information about what the tool returns (e.g., a list of champion IDs or names). The description is incomplete for a tool with one required parameter and no parameter documentation.
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 0%. The only parameter 'platform' has no description, and the tool description does not explain what values are valid (e.g., server region codes like na1, euw1). The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Free champion rotation' is a phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Get the current free champion rotation for a given platform'). The name suggests the purpose, but the description is insufficient for unambiguous understanding.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like champion_mastery, nor any mention of prerequisites or contextual hints for calling the tool.
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.