League of Legends MCP Server

LoL analyze performance

lol_analyze_performance

Analyze recent League of Legends match history to get performance insights and actionable recommendations for improvement.

Instructions

Analyze recent performance and give recommendations

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>"
    },
    "name": "lol_analyze_performance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`puuid`	Yes	Player PUUID
`queue`	No	Queue filter (420=Solo)
`region`	No	Region: euw, eune, na, kr, br, lan, las, oce, ru, tr, jp	euw
`champion`	No	Champion ID filter
`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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only says 'analyze' and 'give recommendations', implying read-only but no mention of data freshness, rate limits, or computational cost. Lacks behavioral detail.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It could be more informative without becoming wordy.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the tool has complex behavior. The description is too thin—doesn't define 'recent' (uses matchCount parameter), performance metrics, or recommendation types.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Queue filter (420=Solo)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'analyze recent performance and give recommendations' is vague. It doesn't specify what type of performance metrics are analyzed (e.g., KDA, CS, win rate) or what kind of recommendations (e.g., champion picks, item builds). Compared to siblings like 'lol_get_match_history' or 'lol_analyze_champion', it lacks specificity.

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. For example, it doesn't say to use this for overall performance analysis versus 'lol_get_player_profile' for stats or 'lol_analyze_champion' for champion-specific tips. No exclusions or context provided.

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