opendota_get_playerRetrieve a Dota 2 player's profile and aggregate stats by Steam32 account ID, including rank, MMR estimate, and profile details for scouting and match analysis.
Get a player's profile and aggregate stats by Steam32 account id (rank, MMR estimate, profile).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| account_id | Yes | Steam32 account id (from opendota_search_players) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / account_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is aggregate profile/stat data, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or the API's caching behavior that would enrich the picture.
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 zero filler; the resource and the identifier come first and the returned fields are appended in parentheses. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description names the main returned values (rank, MMR estimate, profile), which partially compensates for the absent output schema. It is essentially adequate, with only minor room to describe the shape of the aggregate stats.
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 account_id (Steam32 id) and fields (comma-separated keys) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is 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 (Get) and resource (a player's profile and aggregate stats) plus the identifier used (Steam32 account id) and the fields returned (rank, MMR estimate, profile). This clearly separates it from search tools, though the text does not name a sibling explicitly the way a 5 would.
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?
Usage is only implied: you need a Steam32 account id, and the schema notes it comes from opendota_search_players. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or comparison against alternatives such as opendota_search_players in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.