League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get player match summary

lol_get_player_match_summary

Retrieve a compact statistical summary for a specific player in a single League of Legends match, including their performance stats without the full match data.

Instructions

Get compact review stats for one player in one match without full match blob

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": {
      "matchId": "<matchId>",
      "gameName": "<gameName>",
      "tagLine": "<tagLine>"
    },
    "name": "lol_get_player_match_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`region`	No	Region: euw, eune, na, kr, br, lan, las, oce, ru, tr, jp, ph2, sg2, th2, tw2, vn2	euw
`matchId`	Yes	Match ID, e.g. EUW1_123
`tagLine`	Yes	Riot ID tag line
`gameName`	Yes	Riot ID game name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'compact review stats' but does not define what stats are included, return format, or any side effects/auth needs. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Concise and to the point, though could include slightly more detail without losing efficiency.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should ideally hint at return shape. It describes input and purpose but omits output structure. Adequate but incomplete given sibling variety.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'compact review stats for one player in one match', and explicitly distinguishes from 'full match blob', implying a filtered subset. This effectively differentiates from sibling tools like lol_get_match_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when compact stats are needed instead of full match data, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list specific alternatives. It provides only implied context without clear exclusions.

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