Crawlora MCP

opendota_find_matches

Read-only

Returns recent public Dota 2 matches in which given heroes were on team A and/or team B, with the radiant and dire lineups, whether Radiant won, and the side and result of the team_a heroes. Provide team_a and/or team_b as comma-separated hero ids (up to 5 each, at least one hero in total) from opendota_heroes; unknown or repeated ids are rejected. Use it to see how a hero combination performs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "opendota_find_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team_a`	No	Optional comma-separated hero ids (up to 5) that must be on team A, from opendota_heroes.
`team_b`	No	Optional comma-separated hero ids (up to 5) that must be on team B, from opendota_heroes. At least one hero id is required across team_a and team_b.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior beyond annotations: unknown or repeated ids are rejected, up to 5 heroes per side, at least one hero total, and it enumerates the returned fields (lineups, Radiant win, team_a side/result).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is front-loaded, starting with what the tool returns, then parameter rules, then intended use. It is efficient, though the return-field enumeration in the first sentence overlaps with the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given both a 100%-covered input schema, full annotations, and an output schema, the description adds everything an agent still needs: filter semantics, validation behavior, and intended use. Nothing material is missing for a correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters (team_a, team_b) are already fully documented in the schema, and the description largely restates those constraints. It does add the rejection rule for unknown/repeated ids, a marginal value add, but overall the schema carries the semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('recent public Dota 2 matches') and defines the filter (heroes on team A and/or team B) plus the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes from single-hero tools by emphasizing combinations, but never names the adjacent opendota siblings (e.g. opendota_hero_matches, opendota_public_matches), so explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The closing sentence 'Use it to see how a hero combination performs' gives clear usage context, and the requirement to supply at least one hero id is stated. However, it does not say when to prefer this over sibling tools like opendota_hero_matches or opendota_scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crawlora MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?