League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get clash team

lol_get_clash_team

Retrieve Clash team details using a team ID and optional platform parameter.

Instructions

Get Clash team info

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>"
    },
    "name": "lol_get_clash_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`teamId`	Yes	Clash team ID
`platform`	No	Platform: euw1, eun1, na1, kr, jp1, br1, la1, la2, oc1, tr1, ru	euw1

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing beyond a simple read operation. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or return behavior. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very short—one sentence—but this comes at the cost of missing important details. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified. Average conciseness for a minimal description.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at return value structure. It does not. Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no nested objects), a slightly more detailed description would be expected to fully cover what the agent needs to know. The description falls short.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (teamId and platform). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Clash team info' clearly states the action (get) and resource (Clash team info). It is not a tautology and indicates a specific retrieval operation. However, it lacks detail about what 'info' comprises and does not differentiate from sibling tools like lol_get_clash_player.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lol_get_clash_tournaments or lol_get_clash_player. The description does not specify any prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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