tournamentsList Dota 2 tournaments (leagues) from STRATZ, most recent start date first (up to 50) — id, name, tier, start/end dates and prize pool. Pass only_premium=true to restrict to MAJOR and INTERNATIONAL tier events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | Your own STRATZ API token (BYO — Pipeworx does not supply one). Free at https://stratz.com/api after Steam sign-in. | |
| only_premium | No |
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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: default sort order, a 50-result cap, returned fields, and the effect of only_premium=true.
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?
Two compact sentences carry all essential information: what is returned, ordering, limit, fields, and the filter option. No filler or redundancy is present, and the key action is front-loaded.
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 low-complexity list tool with no output schema, the description includes the necessary return fields, ordering, limit, and filter behavior. It could add a brief note about the default behavior when only_premium is omitted, but that is reasonably implied by 'restrict.'
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%, but the description compensates for the undocumented only_premium parameter by explaining it restricts results to MAJOR and INTERNATIONAL tier events. The _apiKey parameter is fully described in the schema. Together, both parameters are semantically clear.
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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'List Dota 2 tournaments (leagues) from STRATZ.' It adds concrete details such as ordering, a 50-item limit, and included fields (id, name, tier, dates, prize pool). The plural 'tournaments' also differentiates it from the singular sibling tool 'tournament'.
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 context is clear: this tool lists Dota 2 tournaments, sorted by most recent start date, with an optional premium-only filter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative like 'tournament' for a single-event lookup, so it misses the top bar for explicit exclusion guidance.
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.