Fetch Overwatch replay details and independently recorded playback evidence using a 6-character code. Verify match events without relying on unverified public source flags.
Get replay details and independently recorded playback evidence. Public source flags never imply client verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| refresh | No |
| 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.