League of Legends MCP Server

LoL get ranked

lol_get_ranked

Retrieve League of Legends ranked stats including tier, rank, LP, wins, losses, and win rate for a player by PUUID.

Instructions

Get ranked stats (tier, rank, LP, wins, losses, winRate)

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_ranked"
  }
}

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'get'. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any potential side effects, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 very concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, listing the returned data fields. Could be slightly expanded but remains efficient.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains return values by listing fields. However, it lacks details on which queues are covered (e.g., solo/duo, flex) or how tier/rank are structured. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameters (puuid, platform) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ranked stats' with enumerated fields (tier, rank, LP, wins, losses, winRate). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like lol_get_league_entries or lol_get_player_profile that may also return ranked data.

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 over alternatives (e.g., lol_get_league_entries). There is no mention of prerequisites beyond the required puuid parameter or typical use cases.

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