heroFetch a single Dota 2 hero's full detail by numeric hero id — display name, short name, roles, and base/gain stats (armor, strength, agility, intelligence, primary attribute, attack type/range/rate, starting damage, move speed, vision range).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| _apiKey | Yes | Your own STRATZ API token (BYO — Pipeworx does not supply one). Free at https://stratz.com/api after Steam sign-in. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact content of the response (display name, roles, stats, etc.), which is useful for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies a query.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then packs the returned fields into a parenthetical list. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause adds useful information.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what the resource is, how to identify it, and what the response contains. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to the plural sibling tool for listing all heroes, but it is not necessary for correct invocation.
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 50%: only '_apiKey' has a description. The tool description compensates for the undocumented 'id' parameter by clarifying it must be a numeric Dota 2 hero ID, and the schema examples (1, 92) reinforce valid values. The '_apiKey' meaning is already fully described in 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 ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a single Dota 2 hero's full detail'), and a key criterion ('by numeric hero id'). It also enumerates exactly what fields are returned, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like heroes or hero_stats.
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 clearly establishes the intended use case: retrieving comprehensive information for one hero identified by its numeric ID. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, 'single' vs. the plural sibling tools implies when not to use it, and the examples reinforce expected ID values.
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 or intentionally duplicated purposes: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta currently behave identically, and the Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) presents multiple scanners with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but the set as a whole is hard to navigate without close reading.
Naming is a mix of bare single nouns (hero, match, meta, remember, forget), snake_case verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_feedback, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-verb convention across the set.
At 43 tools, the server bundles at least five unrelated domains (Dota 2 stats, Pipeworx data querying, Polymarket analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). That is far too many for a focused MCP server, and the mix makes the surface feel like a grab bag rather than a purpose-built toolkit.
Each subdomain individually has solid coverage: Dota 2 has heroes/matches/players/tournaments/meta plus a GraphQL fallback, the data layer has discovery + routing + grounding + validation, and memory/subscriptions have full lifecycle operations. The only real gap is cohesion across domains; within each slice there are no obvious dead ends.