League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get champ info

lol_get_champ_info

Retrieve detailed info for any League of Legends champion including stats, abilities, cooldowns, ratios, passive, and recommended skill order. Specify champion name and optional patch version.

Instructions

Get detailed champion info (stats, abilities, cooldowns, ratios, passive, skill order)

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": {
      "champion": "<champion>"
    },
    "name": "lol_get_champ_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`patch`	No	Patch version (default: latest)
`champion`	Yes	Champion name (e.g. 'Ahri', 'LeeSin')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, error handling (e.g., unknown champion), rate limits, or authentication needs. The behavior implied is a simple fetch, but details are missing.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key categories of information. While concise, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains clear and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description lists return categories, which helps somewhat. However, it does not cover error cases, output format, or any constraints. For a simple tool with two parameters, it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds context about what the tool returns, but does not enhance understanding of the 'patch' or 'champion' parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool returns 'detailed champion info' and explicitly lists the categories: stats, abilities, cooldowns, ratios, passive, skill order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lol_get_all_champions or lol_get_builds_for_champion, which serve different purposes.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, case sensitivity, or when not to use it. The agent has no guidance on contextual usage.

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