match_ids_by_puuidList recent LoL match IDs for a puuid on a regional cluster; filter by queue type, start/end timestamp, and paginate with start + count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| puuid | Yes | ||
| queue | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| startTime | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Array of match IDs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about listing recent matches, filtering, and pagination, which complements the annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key filters and pagination. No redundant words.
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 has 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, but has an output schema, the description covers filtering and pagination adequately. It implicitly covers required parameters through examples. Minor gap: no explicit mention of required parameters.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions queue, start/end timestamps, and pagination parameters, but does not cover all 8 parameters (e.g., 'type'). Examples partially help but lack full detail.
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 clearly states the action 'list', the resource 'match IDs for a puuid', and the scope 'regional cluster'. It also lists specific filters and pagination options, distinguishing it from siblings like 'match' or 'summoner_by_puuid'.
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 for listing recent match IDs by puuid with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: champion_mastery and summoner_top_mastery both return mastery data, and the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus deep_research all handle question-answering. The inclusion of an entire unrelated Pipeworx research suite under a Riot Games server creates cross-domain ambiguity, making it difficult to know which tool to select.
Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: resource_by_key (account_by_puuid), verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, compare_entities), bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and standalone nouns (match, status). Pipeworx and polymarket tools share consistent prefixes, but the Riot tools and meta-tools break the pattern, resulting in a mixed but still readable convention.
42 tools is far above the typical 3-15 for a focused server. Only 10 are Riot Games-specific; the remaining 28 are unrelated Pipeworx, data-research, Polymarket, and memory tools. The excessive count dilutes the server's purpose and makes it feel bloated.
The Riot Games domain is covered reasonably well with accounts, summoners, mastery, matches, and rankings, but misses common endpoints like champion static data and live match info. The extensive non-Riot tools do not fill these gaps and instead add an unrelated, separately complete surface that distracts from the server's apparent purpose.