match_timelineFetch per-frame event timeline for a LoL match ID — kills, item purchases, level-ups, building destructions at each minute interval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | ||
| match_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | No | Timeline info with frames | |
| metadata | No | Timeline metadata |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "match_id": "na1_4239331234",
+ "region": "americas"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "info": {
+ "description": "Timeline info with frames",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "metadata": {
+ "description": "Timeline metadata",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the timeline granularity (per-frame, per-minute) and event types, which are behavioral details not captured by annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with action and deliverable. No extraneous words. Every detail earns its place.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and annotations covering safety, the description explains the timeline content sufficiently. Minor gap: does not mention potential size or pagination, but not critical for a simple fetch tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so description should explain parameters. It mentions 'LoL match ID' and provides an example with region and match_id, but does not define valid region values or match_id format. The example only partially compensates.
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 (Fetch), the resource (per-frame event timeline for a LoL match ID), and the specific events (kills, item purchases, level-ups, building destructions) at each minute interval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like match or match_ids_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., match for full details). It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. The sibling list is long but no explicit comparisons are made.
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.