Fetch a Dota 2 team's OpenDota profile, tag, logo, rating, win-loss record and recent match metadata using a team ID.
OpenDota team details. Returns one team's OpenDota profile, tag, logo, rating, wins, losses and most recent match metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes | Positive OpenDota team ID from opendota_teams or a match response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return payload (profile, tag, logo, rating, wins, losses, recent match metadata), which is useful and implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about error handling for invalid IDs or whether the response is a single object.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-field list. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers both purpose and return contents. The only meaningful gap is sibling differentiation, which belongs to usage guidance.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single team_id parameter already documents 'Positive OpenDota team ID from opendota_teams or a match response.' The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one team's OpenDota profile.' The explicit 'one team' scopes it as a single-entity lookup, implicitly contrasting with the plural opendota_teams list tool, though it never names that sibling.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus opendota_teams, opendota_team_players, opendota_team_matches or opendota_team_heroes. The only usage signal is the schema note about where the ID comes from; the description itself offers no routing guidance or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.