matchFetch full details of a single Dota 2 match by numeric match id — duration, start time, Radiant/Dire teams, game mode, lobby type, and per-player stats (heroId, K/D/A, GPM, XPM, level).
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "id": 7123456789
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-stratz-api-token",
+ "id": 7123456789
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / _apiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your own STRATZ API token (BYO — Pipeworx does not supply one). Free at https://stratz.com/api after Steam sign-in.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "_apiKey"
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 7123456789
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds value by stating exactly what is fetched (duration, teams, game mode, per-player stats), which is behaviorally relevant when invoking the tool.
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 action and resource, then lists returned fields in a compact, readable list. No filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
With no output schema, the description's list of returned fields gives an agent a good sense of the response. It does not mention API-key requirements or error behavior, but those are covered by the schema and the tool's read-only annotations, so the definition is largely complete.
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 only 50%, but the description compensates for the undocumented 'id' parameter by clarifying it is the numeric Dota 2 match identifier. The other parameter, _apiKey, is already fully explained in the schema, so the description meaningfully covers the gap.
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 names a specific action ('Fetch full details') and a clear resource ('a single Dota 2 match by numeric match id'), then lists the key data returned. This distinguishes it from list-like siblings such as player_matches and live_matches.
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 phrase 'by numeric match id' and 'single match' make the intended invocation context clear: an agent should use this when it already has one numeric Dota 2 match id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.