League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get improvement tips

lol_get_improvement_tips

Get personalized League of Legends improvement tips by analyzing your recent matches. Filter by role, champion, or specific goals to target your weaknesses.

Instructions

Get personalized improvement tips

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_get_improvement_tips"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	No	Specific improvement goal
`role`	No	Role filter: TOP, JUNGLE, MIDDLE, BOTTOM, UTILITY
`puuid`	Yes	Player PUUID
`region`	No	Region: euw, eune, na, kr, br, lan, las, oce, ru, tr, jp	euw
`champion`	No	Champion name 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

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or fetches data from the Riot API. This is a critical gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks essential details. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative. Every sentence should add value, but here it provides minimal context.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the purpose and output more fully. It does not describe what the tips look like, how they are generated, or what the user can expect from the response.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no further semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Get personalized improvement tips' is vague. It does not specify what the tips are based on (e.g., recent matches, champion performance) or how they are personalized. Siblings like lol_analyze_performance and lol_analyze_champion suggest similar functionality, but no differentiation is provided.

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 such as lol_analyze_performance or lol_compare_players. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is most appropriate.

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