Crawlora MCP

opendota_patch_notes

Read-only

Returns Dota 2 patch notes from OpenDota. Without patch it lists every patch key (7_06d to the current patch) in chronological order with counts of heroes and items changed; with patch (for example 7_38) it returns that patch's general notes, item changes and hero changes (general, talents, per-ability notes, hero id and name). Use it to see what changed in a patch or why a hero's win rate moved.

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_patch_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`patch`	No	Optional patch key such as 7_38 or 7_06d; omit it to list every patch key.

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 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the enumeration is chronological from 7_06d to current with per-patch hero/item counts, and single-patch mode returns general notes, item changes and hero changes down to per-ability notes plus hero id/name. It does not mention size limits or rate behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the source and then split cleanly into the no-argument and with-argument behaviors, ending with the usage motivation. Slightly clause-heavy but no filler sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description still sketches both response shapes. For a zero-required-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema description already states the optional patch key, its example values, and that omitting it lists all keys. The prose restates this, though it does usefully spell out what the response shape becomes in each mode. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource (returns Dota 2 patch notes from OpenDota) and immediately explains the two operating modes: no-arg enumeration of patch keys with hero/item change counts, versus single-patch detail. No sibling in the opendota_* family covers patch notes, so the scope is unambiguous.

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?

"Use it to see what changed in a patch or why a hero's win rate moved" gives concrete triggering conditions, and the description implicitly tells the agent to call it twice (enumerate first, then fetch a specific patch). It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to alternatives for related questions (e.g. hero stats).

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?