League of Legends MCP Server

LoL analyze champion

lol_analyze_champion

Analyze player performance on any champion by reviewing recent matches. Get insights into win rate, KDA, and stats to improve gameplay.

Instructions

Analyze performance on a specific champion

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": {
      "puuid": "<puuid>",
      "champion": "<champion>"
    },
    "name": "lol_analyze_champion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`puuid`	Yes	Player PUUID
`region`	No	Region: euw, eune, na, kr, br, lan, las, oce, ru, tr, jp	euw
`champion`	Yes	Champion name
`platform`	No	Platform: euw1, eun1, na1, kr, jp1, br1, la1, la2, oc1, tr1, ru	euw1
`matchCount`	No	Number of matches to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Analyze performance' without mentioning read-only nature, auth needs, or side effects. This is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence. It could be improved by adding more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It lacks information about what the analysis returns or how the tool behaves.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 it analyzes performance on a specific champion, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like lol_analyze_performance, which likely does something similar.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context or prerequisites for usage.

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