brawlerBrawl Stars official API — detail for a single brawler by numeric ID: name, star powers with descriptions, and gadgets with descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Brawler ID | |
| name | No | Brawler name | |
| gadgets | No | ||
| starPowers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 16000000
+ },
+ {
+ "id": 16000001
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "gadgets": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Gadget ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Gadget name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Brawler ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Brawler name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "starPowers": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Star power ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Star power name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the response content (name, star powers, gadgets) and source ('official API'), which goes beyond the annotations. No unknown side effects or caveats are mentioned, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output. It includes no filler and is front-loaded with the API context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-entity lookup with an output schema available, the description is adequately complete. It covers the essential function and return values. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required 'id' of type number. The description adds that it is a 'numeric ID' for a brawler, which gives minimal semantic meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the ID's range, origin, or how to obtain it, so the compensation for low schema coverage is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides detailed information for a single Brawl Stars brawler by numeric ID, listing specific return fields (name, star powers, gadgets). This differentiates it from the sibling 'brawlers' tool by emphasizing 'single brawler'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for looking up a specific brawler's details, distinguishing it from the plural 'brawlers' tool by the singular/plural distinction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set mixes a general data-querying platform (Pipeworx) with a small Brawl Stars API wrapper. Within the Pipeworx cluster, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim have overlapping lookup behavior, and the five polymarket_* tools cover similar prediction-market ground. The Brawl Stars tools are distinct but dwarfed, making the overall purpose confusing.
Most Pipeworx tools use snake_case verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, list_subscriptions), but Brawl Stars tools are bare nouns (brawler, club, player) and memory tools are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Some names are compound (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern spans the whole set, though each subset is internally coherent.
41 tools is far beyond what a Brawl Stars server needs; only about 10 are Brawl Stars-related. The bulk is a general-purpose data and prediction-market toolkit that seems bolted on. The count is not well-scoped to the server's declared name and purpose.
For Brawl Stars, the surface is thin: player and club profiles exist but there is no player search, club search, brawler-specific per-player stats, or detailed leaderboards. The Pipeworx side has broad coverage but is unrelated to the server name, so the domain is muddled and obvious Brawl Stars endpoints are missing.