Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

opendota_team_matches

Retrieve a team's complete OpenDota match history by team ID, including league, opponent, score, and winner data; use it to review all upstream matches in one call.

Instructions

OpenDota team match history. Returns a team's complete upstream match history with league, opponent, score and winner data. The source does not paginate this list; large histories can contain over a thousand rows. Use opendota_match for parsed player statistics.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team_idYesPositive OpenDota team ID from opendota_teams or a match response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.18

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the source does not paginate and that histories can exceed a thousand rows, which materially affects how an agent handles results. It doesn't mention auth or rate-limit behavior, but the key operational caveat (large unpaginated payload) is front and center.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return contents, the large-unpaginated caveat, and the sibling redirect. The key constraint about size is placed before the redirect so it isn't lost.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, the major size/pagination caveat, and the nearest alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage, including what a valid team_id is and where to obtain it, so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond that, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('team match history') and states exactly what the return contains: league, opponent, score and winner data. It also names a sibling (opendota_match) so an agent can distinguish this from the parsed-stats tool.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to opendota_match for parsed player statistics, giving a clear alternative for a related need. It stops short of stating when this tool should *not* be used (e.g. for aggregated stats or single-match lookups), so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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