Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

opendota_benchmarks

Fetch Dota 2 hero benchmark percentiles from OpenDota by hero, role, and rank bracket to compare per-minute performance metrics against public match data.

Instructions

OpenDota Dota 2 hero benchmarks by percentile. Returns a Dota 2 hero's benchmark percentiles from OpenDota's public games: for each of ten per-minute metrics (gold_per_min, xp_per_min, kills_per_min, deaths_per_min, assists_per_min, last_hits_per_min, denies_per_min, hero_damage_per_min, hero_healing_per_min, tower_damage) the value at percentiles 0.1 to 0.99, sorted by percentile. An unknown hero id returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoRole of the games counted; one of core, support; omit for all roles
bracketNoRank bracket 1 (Herald) to 8 (Immortal) to benchmark against; omit for all ranks
hero_idYesPositive hero ID from opendota-heroes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.18

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (ten per-minute metrics, percentiles 0.1–0.99, sorted by percentile) and the 404-on-unknown-hero behavior. It omits auth/rate-limit context, but behavior is otherwise well described.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the return detail and error behavior in three tight sentences. Little waste; well structured for scanning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining the returned metrics, percentile range, sort order, and 404 behavior. Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, with only auth/error-edge detail absent.

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%, so the schema already documents hero_id, role (enum core/support), and bracket (1–8). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource: returns a Dota 2 hero's benchmark percentiles from OpenDota's public games, and enumerates the ten per-minute metrics. This distinguishes it from generic stat siblings like opendota_hero_stats, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Implied usage (benchmark a hero's performance against percentile/bracket/role filters) but no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of when a sibling such as opendota_hero_stats would be preferred. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools