MCP Dota 2 Match Analysis Server

get_camp_stacks

Get all neutral camp stacks for a Dota 2 match. Provide a match ID to retrieve all stacks, optionally filtered by hero, for strategic analysis.

Instructions

Get all neutral camp stacks in a Dota 2 match.

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": "get_camp_stacks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`match_id`	Yes
`hero_filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`stacks`	No
`success`	Yes
`match_id`	Yes
`hero_filter`	No	Hero filter applied
`total_stacks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance implications, data availability limits, or whether the data is aggregated or raw. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words or fluff. It effectively captures the core operation in a concise manner, earning a top score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It fails to explain the optional hero_filter parameter or provide context on how this tool relates to siblings like get_jungle_summary or get_farming_pattern. The description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While match_id is inferable from context, hero_filter is entirely unexplained—its purpose and possible values are not addressed. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare property names in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('all neutral camp stacks') and scope ('in a Dota 2 match'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_jungle_summary or get_farming_pattern, which focus on other aspects of the match.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does without context for selection among the many get_* sibling tools.

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