club_membersBrawl Stars official API — paginated member list for a club tag: each member's name, tag, trophies, role, and name color. Supports limit/after/before cursors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| before | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| paging | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 30,
+ "tag": "#2CCCCCCCC"
+ },
+ {
+ "after": "#XYZ789",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "tag": "#ABC12345"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Member name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "role": {
+ "description": "Member role",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tag": {
+ "description": "Member tag",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "trophies": {
+ "description": "Member trophies",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "paging": {
+ "properties": {
+ "cursors": {
+ "properties": {
+ "after": {
+ "description": "Cursor for next page",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "before": {
+ "description": "Cursor for previous page",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains pagination via limit/after/before cursors and specifies the exact member fields returned, going beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two concise, information-dense sentences front-load the purpose and field list while also covering pagination. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the operation, parameters, and pagination. The tool's complexity (4 params, 1 required) is well addressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It identifies 'tag' as the club identifier and explains 'limit/after/before' as pagination cursors, though it could elaborate more on cursor semantics (e.g., positional vs. value-based).
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 'paginated member list for a club tag' and enumerates the returned fields (name, tag, trophies, role, name color), making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'club' (club info) and 'player' (individual data).
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 gives clear context: use this for a club's member list when you have a club tag. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full usage guidance.
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.