Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

opendota_patch_notes

Retrieve Dota 2 patch notes: list every patch key with hero and item change counts, or fetch a specific patch's general, item, and hero changes with resolved hero IDs.

Instructions

OpenDota Dota 2 patch notes. Without patch, lists every patch key OpenDota has notes for (from 7_06d to the current patch) in chronological order with the number of heroes and items changed. With patch (for example 7_38), returns that patch's general notes, item changes and hero changes (general, talents and per-ability notes, with the hero id and name resolved).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchNoPatch key such as 7_38 or 7_06d; omit it to list every patch key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.18

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses ordering (chronological), coverage range (7_06d to current), the per-patch payload structure (general/item/hero changes with hero id and name resolved), and the summary counts in list mode. It omits anything about response size, pagination, or caching, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the no-parameter behavior and followed by the parameterized behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells an agent exactly what each mode returns, in what order, and over what range — enough to call the tool correctly and interpret results without further probing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by giving the format convention (`7_38`, `7_06d` with underscore) and spelling out the semantic effect of omission — enumeration vs. detail — which the schema only states tersely.

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+resource ('OpenDota Dota 2 patch notes') and precisely describes the two distinct behaviors: listing all patch keys vs. returning one patch's notes. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like opendota_constants or opendota_heroes without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly explains the mode switch: omit `patch` to enumerate keys, supply `patch` (e.g. `7_38`) to fetch details. That is genuine when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion case (e.g. what to use if you already know the hero id).

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