tournamentFetch details for a single Dota 2 tournament (league) by numeric id — display name, description, tier, start/end dates, and prize pool.
| 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": 15614
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-stratz-api-token",
+ "id": 15614
+ }
+]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": 15614
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the data returned (display name, description, tier, dates, prize pool), giving the agent a concrete expectation without contradicting annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, lookup key, and key return fields. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 fetch tool with two well-typed parameters and rich annotations, the description is complete. It names the resource, the identifier, and the expected return content, so an agent has enough context to call it correctly despite the absence of an output schema.
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%: _apiKey is fully documented, but id has only a type. The description compensates partially by clarifying that id is the numeric tournament/league identifier, but it does not add further semantic detail about id formats or the meaning of the listed output fields beyond what common sense would expect.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies a concrete resource ('a single Dota 2 tournament (league)'), and states the lookup key ('by numeric id'). It also lists the returned fields, and the word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling 'tournaments' tool.
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 'single Dota 2 tournament ... by numeric id' gives clear selection context: use when you have a numeric id and need details for one league. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'single' qualifier implies that the plural sibling is for lists.
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.