opendota_get_matchRetrieve full Dota 2 match details by match ID, including players, heroes, K/D/A, items, gold/xp, and objectives.
Get full detail for a Dota 2 match: players, heroes, K/D/A, items, gold/xp, objectives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| match_id | Yes | Match id (e.g. from opendota_get_pro_matches) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / match_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned payload categories, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits any note on cost, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid match ids.
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 front-loaded sentence with a verb, qualifier, and colon-separated list of contents. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates what the match detail contains, and both parameters are documented in the schema. Given the simple two-parameter shape and annotation coverage, this is nearly complete, missing only explicit usage routing.
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%, so both match_id and fields are already documented in the schema including the sourcing hint for match_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Get) and resource (full detail for a Dota 2 match) and enumerates the returned data (players, heroes, K/D/A, items, gold/xp, objectives), making it distinguishable from the match-listing siblings like opendota_get_pro_matches. It stops short of naming a sibling for contrast, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only hint about the match_id source lives in the schema property text ('e.g. from opendota_get_pro_matches'), not in the description itself, so the description carries no usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.