MCP Dota 2 Match Analysis Server

get_league_matches

Retrieve Dota 2 matches from a specific league or tournament, with matches grouped into series for analysis.

Instructions

Get matches from a specific league/tournament with series grouping.

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": {
      "league_id": "<league_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_league_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`league_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`series`	No
`matches`	No
`success`	Yes
`league_id`	Yes
`league_name`	No
`total_series`	No
`total_matches`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'series grouping' as a behavior, but fails to disclose how limit is applied (per series or per match), error handling, or ordering, leaving significant ambiguity for a read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous detail. It is appropriately concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral specifics like pagination or grouping structure, making it minimally adequate for a 2-parameter read tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects to league_id via 'specific league/tournament', but leaves the 'limit' parameter entirely unexplained and doesn't clarify how limit interacts with series grouping.

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') and resource ('matches from a specific league/tournament'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('with series grouping') that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pro_matches or get_team_matches.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context (when you need matches from a particular league) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over get_pro_matches or get_team_matches.

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