MCP Dota 2 Match Analysis Server

delete_replay

Deletes cached replay and parsed data for a Dota 2 match to force a fresh download and analysis. Use when replay is corrupted or data is outdated.

Instructions

Delete cached replay file and parsed data for a match.

Use this tool when:

A replay appears to be corrupted and needs to be re-downloaded
You want to force a fresh download of a replay
Cached parsed data seems incorrect or outdated

After deletion, the next analysis request for this match will trigger a fresh download and parse.

Args: match_id: The Dota 2 match ID to delete cached data for

Returns: DeleteReplayResponse with deletion status

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "match_id": "<match_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_replay"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`match_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Human-readable result message
`success`	Yes
`match_id`	Yes
`file_deleted`	No	Whether the replay file was deleted
`cache_deleted`	No	Whether the parsed cache was deleted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that cached data is deleted and that subsequent analysis requests trigger a fresh download and parse. This is sufficiently transparent for a delete operation, though it does not mention any reversibility or error handling.

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?

The description is well-structured with a main statement, bulleted use cases, a consequence clause, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the parameter means. The re-download behavior is an important side effect that is explicitly mentioned, making the context complete.

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?

The input schema only lists match_id as an integer with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by defining match_id as 'The Dota 2 match ID to delete cached data for', adding the necessary semantic meaning for invocation.

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 'Delete cached replay file and parsed data for a match', which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_replay and all get_* tools, which are all read or download operations.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases (corrupted replay, force fresh download, outdated parsed data) and explains the consequence of deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name an alternative tool, so it lacks a clear exclusion clause.

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