Skip to main content
Glama

Brawl Stars

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Compare Entities

compare_entities
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Compare X and Y" / "X vs Y" / "X versus Y" / "which is bigger / better / larger / more profitable" / "rank these companies" / "head to head" — side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. type="company" pulls LATEST 10-K revenue + net income + cash + long-term debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL (off-calendar fiscal years handled correctly — AAPL Sep, NVDA Jan, etc.). type="drug" pulls FAERS adverse-event counts, FDA approval counts, active trial counts. Results sorted by primary metric so "largest" / "most" / "biggest" reads off the top of the response. Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity. Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valuesYesFor company: 2–5 tickers/CIKs (e.g., ["AAPL","MSFT"]). For drug: 2–5 names (e.g., ["ozempic","mounjaro"]).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior. The description adds substantial context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return format with citation URIs. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries value: trigger phrases, data sources, edge cases, sorting, and output. It is front-loaded with user intent patterns, staying efficient despite its density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description explains what is returned (paired data + citation URIs) and how results are ordered. It also specifies per-type data fields, covering both parameters thoroughly and making the tool understandable without additional lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains what each type ('company' vs 'drug') pulls (financials vs adverse events/approvals), and gives examples of values. This enriches the bare enum/array definitions.

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 it performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one call, with explicit trigger phrases. It distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups and sibling tools by emphasizing parallel execution and scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance via trigger phrases and 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, leaving a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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

All Brawl Stars toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources