Skip to main content
Glama

opendota_hero_matchups

Read-only

Returns a Dota 2 hero's win record against each other hero in recent public games (games, wins, win rate, localized name), sorted by games played. Provide hero_id from opendota_heroes; unknown ids return not found. Use opendota_hero_stats for aggregate pick/win rates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hero_id": "<hero_id>"
    },
    "name": "opendota_hero_matchups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hero_idYesRequired positive hero ID from opendota_heroes.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: result ordering (sorted by games played), the returned fields, and error behavior on unknown ids. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the minor gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: purpose and output shape first, parameter sourcing and error behavior second, sibling routing last. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained in depth; the description nonetheless names the key fields. Combined with the sibling routing and error note, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 already documents hero_id as a required positive hero ID from opendota_heroes. The description reinforces the source of the id but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: returns a Dota 2 hero's win record against each other hero in recent public games, with the exact fields enumerated. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling opendota_hero_stats (aggregate pick/win rates vs. per-hero matchups).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly directs the agent to obtain hero_id from opendota_heroes and to use opendota_hero_stats instead for aggregate pick/win rates. It also warns unknown ids return not found, covering the main misuse conditions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.