League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get player vision summary

lol_get_player_vision_summary

Retrieve a compact vision summary for a player in a League of Legends match. Shows key vision metrics to evaluate ward placement and map awareness.

Instructions

Get compact vision review data for a player in one match

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_vision_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
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves vision data; it does not disclose behavior like read-only nature, scope limitations, or output format.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more context without losing efficiency.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, and it lacks behavioral or usage context. For a tool with four parameters and many siblings, more detail would be beneficial.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'matchId', 'gameName', 'tagLine', 'region').

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a unique resource 'compact vision review data' for a player in one match, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lol_get_player_match_summary' which covers overall match summary.

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 alternative vision or match analysis tools, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.

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