Retrieve Overwatch catalog data: heroes, maps, modes, tiers, regions, and filters. Optionally narrow by hero, role, mode, or locale.
List public hero details, maps and supported filters. Map modes are map types, not competitive seasonal pools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hero | No | ||
| mode | No | ||
| role | No | ||
| type | No | heroes | |
| locale | No | ko-KR |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.