Retrieve a VLR.gg Valorant event by numeric ID to get its name, series, dates, prize, location, and participating team IDs for tournament tracking.
VLR.gg Valorant event detail and participating teams. Returns one VLR.gg event: name, series, dates, prize, location and the participating teams with ids. Use vlr-event-matches for its matches and vlr-team for a team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric VLR event id from vlr-events |
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 full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'Returns one VLR.gg event' and scopes the return to the event plus participating teams, but it does not mention error behavior, data freshness, or any access constraints.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return scope, followed by explicit sibling routing. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must establish what comes back, and it does by listing the event fields and participating teams with ids. It could mention behavior for missing or unknown ids, but for a simple detail lookup it is otherwise complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter is documented in the schema as a numeric VLR event id from vlr-events. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the id parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource (one VLR.gg Valorant event), a concrete action (returns event detail), and lists the exact fields returned, including participating teams with ids. It clearly distinguishes this from the event-matches and team siblings.
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?
It explicitly routes match retrieval to vlr-event-matches and individual team retrieval to vlr-team, giving clear alternatives for common follow-up needs. It does not explicitly contrast with the vlr_events listing tool or state when an event id might be unavailable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.