overwatch-AIO-mcp

by BK927

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource: status, catalog, meta, player search/profile, ranker search, replay search/detail, patches, and esports. The overlapping search tools are carefully delineated by their descriptions, such as public players versus curated rankers and replay search versus replay detail.
Naming Consistency4/5
The ow_ prefix is used consistently and most entity operations follow a resource_search/resource_get pattern. Minor deviations like ow_status, ow_catalog, ow_meta, ow_patches, and ow_esports use bare nouns, and players_search versus player_get introduces slight plural/singular inconsistency, but the overall pattern remains readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is well-scoped for an all-in-one Overwatch data server covering heroes, maps, meta stats, players, rankers, replays, patches, and esports. Each tool covers a distinct domain without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the apparent read-only scope comprehensively: status/capabilities, reference catalog, aggregate meta, player lookup, ranker registry, replay codes, patch notes, and esports data. Search/detail pairs exist for players and replays, and the descriptions explicitly call out known limitations rather than leaving dead ends.
Average 3.5/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on September 9, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so description doesn't need to repeat. The added note about equality not establishing identity provides extra transparency about result interpretation.
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?
One sentence with no redundant words. Effectively communicates the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing parameter definitions and output format. Given the presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at result structure, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions for limit, query, or offset, and the tool description does not explain them. An agent cannot infer parameter semantics from this description alone.
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 'search' and resource 'public BattleTags or names', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like ow_player_get. The caveat about identity adds useful context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this over alternatives like ow_player_get or other search tools. The description lacks explicit conditions or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's use of 'Read' is consistent with those hints. The description adds useful context about the dataset's scope (esports vs. ranked ladder) without contradicting the annotations, but it does not introduce any additional behavioral caveats, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and scope without unnecessary detail or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, a date range, a limit, and an enum, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works, or what the various filters mean. The output schema exists but is not described, and the description's mention of 'match coverage and release dates' is too vague to cover the full functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (e.g., map, hero, team, view, after, before, limit, stage, region). While the view enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, so it provides no meaningful guidance on parameter usage.
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 clearly states that the tool reads the OWCS Korea dataset, and it distinguishes esports metrics from ranked ladder statistics, which clarifies its specific resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly name the kind of data returned (e.g., matches, teams, maps) beyond vague mention of 'match coverage and release dates', so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers only implicit guidance by noting that esports metrics are separate from ranked ladder statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as search endpoints or catalog/status tools. There is no clear 'use this for X, use that for Y' instruction, leaving the selection criteria largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable context: history uses stored snapshots (implying potentially cached data), ASIA region is not KR (data grouping nuance), and no matchup winrates (scope exclusion). These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand tool behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief note. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds three clarifying qualifiers. There is no fluff or redundant language, and every clause delivers information that is not obvious from the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 16 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how parameters interact, what the viewing modes (heroes, map_comparison, tier_comparison, region_comparison, history) are, how filtering works, or what the response structure looks like. The agent would struggle to construct a correct request without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not. It mentions maps, tiers, and source regions generically but does not clarify any of the 16 parameters, such as `allow_region_fallback`, `order_by`, `source`, or `view`. Without parameter meaning, the agent can only guess based on names, which is insufficient for a tool this parameter-rich.
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 the tool compares hero aggregate percentages, maps, tiers, or source regions, which is a clear verb+resource. It also clarifies what it does not do (no matchup winrates) and a data nuance (ASIA is not KR). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like ow_status or ow_catalog, so clarity is strong but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It mentions 'history uses stored retrieval snapshots' which hints at a usage nuance but does not specify conditions or alternatives. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds an extra transparency note ('Public source flags never imply client verification'), which clarifies a data-quality caveat beyond what annotations state, but does not detail side effects or error handling.
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?
The description is brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences: one stating the primary purpose and one adding a data caveat. It avoids fluff and redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple (two parameters, one required, no enums), but the description omits essential details about parameter semantics and the output structure. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of parameter documentation and any indication of response fields makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions for the 'code' and 'refresh' parameters, and the tool description does not explain them. The meaning of 'code' (likely a replay identifier) and the effect of 'refresh' (possibly forcing a cache refresh) are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the object 'replay details and independently recorded playback evidence', making the tool's primary function unambiguous. It also provides a specific data note about public source flags, further clarifying what the tool returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ow_replays_search or ow_player_get. No use cases, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools are mentioned, leaving the selection entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a meaningful caveat that player nationality/identity does not imply match server region, which helps prevent misinterpreting region filters. Read-only/non-destructive behavior is covered by annotations, so the description needs less behavioral detail.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; every phrase adds meaning. The caveat is compact and valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a complex 16-parameter search schema, the description gives only a high-level summary and one caveat. It omits output shape, common usage, and how filters interact, so it is not complete enough for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The phrase 'stored identity/region/evidence' provides broad context for filter fields, but most of the 16 parameters are left unexplained. No detail is given for tier vs tier_min, playable_status, uploaded_after, refresh, player_pool, or ranker_status.
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?
States a specific action—find public replay codes—and indicates filtering by identity, region, and validation evidence. It is distinguishable from replay retrieval by 'search' and 'public replay codes,' though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance about when to use this search versus sibling tools such as ow_replay_get or ow_rankers_search. The region caveat offers context but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond data characteristics like 'locally curated' and 'evidenced,' which concern data source rather than tool behavior, so it does not meaningfully supplement the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope without extraneous details. It is well-structured, directly addressing the tool's function and its limitations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides context about the data scope (local, curated, evidenced, dated) and what it is not (live Top 500), which helps an agent determine suitability. However, it lacks details about output format, parameter usage, or any special behavior, making it only moderately complete for a tool with 8 parameters and an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The parameter names (hero, role, limit, region, season, country, rank_max, verified_only) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to search a locally curated, evidenced ranker registry with dated observations. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the complete live Top 500, leaving no ambiguity about the resource being accessed.
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 description provides a clear when-not by stating 'Not the complete live Top 500,' signaling that this tool is not for live rankings. It also implies when to use it (when needing curated, evidenced historical data), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for live data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'List public', which aligns with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations and signals no mutation. It additionally clarifies the unusual meaning of 'map modes', providing behavior context beyond what the annotations alone express.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler or redundancy. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about map modes is presented efficiently.
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?
For a straightforward catalog tool with an output schema and several optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose and a likely point of confusion. It could be slightly richer about how filters and locale behave, but it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate for most parameters. It mentions hero details, maps, and filters, and clarifies 'mode', but it does not explain the hero, role, type, or locale parameters meaningfully.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and identifies the resource types (hero details, maps, supported filters). It also includes a useful disambiguation for map modes, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is the source for catalog-style data and supported filter values, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus sibling tools like ow_meta or ow_status. The 'supported filters' phrasing offers only implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by mentioning explicit replay invalidation notices and their consequence for older checks, which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is two compact sentences that front-load the tool's core purpose and add a meaningful domain-specific caveat. There is no padding or irrelevant detail, and the wording is efficient despite minor grammatical peculiarities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only behavior, so those areas are handled. However, the six-parameter surface with zero schema descriptions leaves filtering and view semantics implicit; agents would need to infer how to use view, after, before, and hero effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the six parameters: hero, view, after, before, limit, or locale. Mentioning 'hero changes' is only weakly connected to the 'hero' parameter and does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: reading official patch notes and hero changes. This is distinct from sibling tools like ow_replays_search and ow_esports, and the replay invalidation notice adds unique domain-specific scope.
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 description makes clear this is the tool for authoritative patch notes and hero changes, and the replay invalidation sentence gives actionable follow-up guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is generally clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior; the description's 'Read' wording is consistent. It adds behavior about reporting private and missing data distinctly, which goes beyond mere annotation.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds the key output behavior. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description communicates the core purpose and a key output nuance, but given six parameters and a view enum, it leaves several operational details unexplained. It is adequate but not fully complete without schema descriptions or an output schema reference.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only loosely implies filtered career/hero/role statistics. It does not explicitly explain mode, platform, view enum semantics, or how filtering interacts with parameters, so parameter meaning is only partially supplemented.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reads a public player profile and filtered statistics, and distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like ow_players_search. The verb and resource are specific and 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?
The description gives useful guidance about public data and distinct handling of private/missing fields. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or enumerate when to use this over search tools, but the public/private distinction provides practical usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses network access behavior and caching semantics, which complements the readOnly and idempotent annotations. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but the annotations already convey the safety profile.
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?
The description is two sentences, concise, and free of unnecessary detail. It packs purpose, usage, and behavioral notes efficiently.
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?
For a simple status tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete enough to understand what it does and how to use it. It does not describe output format, but the output schema is already provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single refresh parameter is semantically explained by the description: setting it triggers bounded cached probes, while the default avoids network access. This provides enough context despite the schema lacking a parameter description.
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 clearly states the tool shows observed source health, capabilities, and stored coverage, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on 'observed' and 'stored' implies read-only status reporting.
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 description explains when to use the refresh parameter versus the default behavior: refresh performs bounded cached probes, while default performs no network access. This gives practical usage guidance, though it does not mention alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

overwatch-AIO-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![overwatch-AIO-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BK927/overwatch-aio/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BK927/overwatch-aio)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![overwatch-AIO-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BK927/overwatch-aio/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BK927/overwatch-aio)