League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get player profile

lol_get_player_profile

Retrieve a complete League of Legends player profile including account, summoner, ranked stats, and mastery summary in a single API call.

Instructions

Get complete player profile in one call (account, summoner, ranked, mastery summary)

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": {
      "gameName": "<gameName>",
      "tagLine": "<tagLine>"
    },
    "name": "lol_get_player_profile"
  }
}

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
`tagLine`	Yes	Tag line
`gameName`	Yes	Game name
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it makes 'one call' but does not address potential issues like data freshness, error handling, or any restrictions. The description is too minimal to guide the agent on behavioral expectations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. Every part earns its place.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a simple aggregation tool but does not specify the return format or structure of the profile. It could be more complete by hinting at what fields are included, but it is not severely lacking.

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% and includes descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool gets a complete player profile, listing the components (account, summoner, ranked, mastery summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch individual components, making the purpose very clear.

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 needing a full profile, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. calling individual sibling tools (e.g., lol_get_account, lol_get_ranked). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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