MCP Dota 2 Match Analysis Server

get_team_matches

Retrieves recent matches for a team using its unique ID. Returns match details with optional limit, useful for performance analysis and historical review.

Instructions

Get recent matches for a team.

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": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_team_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`matches`	No
`success`	Yes
`team_id`	Yes
`team_name`	No
`total_matches`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Get recent matches' without defining 'recent', mentioning the default limit of 50, or clarifying that this is a read-only operation. The output schema covers return values, but the ambiguity of 'recent' and lack of side-effect disclosure leave significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant phrases. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, this description is too terse. It does not explain the meaning of 'recent', the effect of the limit parameter, or how this tool fits among the many sibling match-related tools. The output schema may provide return structure, but the description leaves critical context unresolved.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It implies team_id via 'for a team' but does not clarify the role of limit or define the scope of 'recent matches'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves recent matches for a team, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It adds the qualifier 'recent' to distinguish from general match queries, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pro_matches or get_teamfights.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_team for team details or get_match_info for a specific match. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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