opendota_get_pro_leaguesRetrieve Dota 2 leagues and tournaments with IDs, names, and tiers to identify and filter esports competitions for analysis or display.
List Dota 2 leagues / tournaments with id, name and tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results carry id, name, and tier, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size for this open-world list.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero padding. It is appropriately sized, though terse enough that no usage context is included.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose single parameter is fully documented in the schema, this is nearly complete. The returned fields are even named, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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% for the single optional 'fields' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no filtering or field-selection syntax beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Dota 2 leagues / tournaments') plus the fields returned (id, name, tier). The 'Dota 2' qualifier distinguishes it from the many other sports-league siblings. It does not, however, distinguish it from its closer opendota siblings like get_pro_matches or get_pro_teams.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions given. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the roster-of-leagues lookup versus get_pro_matches or get_pro_teams.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.