Skip to main content
Glama

Brawl Stars

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Events Rotation

events_rotation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Current event rotation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "endTime": {
+            "description": "Event end time",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Event ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "map": {
+            "description": "Map name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "mode": {
+            "description": "Event mode",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "startTime": {
+            "description": "Event start time",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The word 'Current' hints at a temporal snapshot (vs historical), which is a tiny behavioral trait beyond the strong annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent). However, nothing is disclosed about return type, size, or interpretation. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At only three words, it is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks the substance needed to justify its brevity; the phrase does not earn its place with useful information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Even though the output schema exists, the description is too vague to understand what 'events rotation' means or why an agent would call this tool. No context about the domain, expected results, or relationship to sibling tools is provided, making the tool effectively opaque.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. No parameter descriptions are needed since there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Current event rotation.' is a noun phrase that simply restates the tool's name 'events_rotation' without any verb or action. It fails to specify what the tool does, what an 'event rotation' is, or how it differs from siblings. This is a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 or which alternatives to consider. With 40+ sibling tools, the description gives zero context for selection or exclusion.

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