League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get player challenges

lol_get_player_challenges

Retrieve a player's challenge progress in League of Legends using their PUUID and platform.

Instructions

Get player challenge progress

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_player_challenges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`puuid`	Yes	Player PUUID
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the operation type (get) but omits details like whether it is read-only, latency, rate limits, or required authentication. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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 short sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though slightly under-specified for full clarity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'challenge progress' includes, typical response structure, or any nuances. The current text is insufficient for an agent to fully understand output expectations.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 player challenge progress' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (player challenge progress). It is specific enough to differentiate from the sibling `lol_get_challenges` which likely covers all challenges rather than per-player progress.

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 like `lol_get_challenges`. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts where it applies, or whether it should be used for specific player identification.

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