player_battlesBrawl Stars official API — recent battle log for a player tag: battle time, event/map, mode, result, star player, teams, and brawlers used per battle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "tag": "#ABC123DEF"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "battle": {
+ "properties": {
+ "duration": {
+ "description": "Battle duration",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "mode": {
+ "description": "Battle mode",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "players": {
+ "description": "Players in battle",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "description": "Battle result",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "teams": {
+ "description": "Teams in battle",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "trophyChange": {
+ "description": "Trophy change",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Battle type",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "battleTime": {
+ "description": "Battle timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "event": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Event ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "map": {
+ "description": "Map name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mode": {
+ "description": "Game mode",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'recent' scoping and 'official API' context but does not mention limits, pagination, or authentication. No contradiction.
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?
One clear, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the resource and then lists the data fields. Every word contributes value, no padding.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the scope ('recent battle log') and includes key result fields. A minor gap is not specifying how far back 'recent' goes or any limit on number of battles, but the output schema likely provides structure.
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 has 1 parameter (tag) with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'player tag' without explaining the format or encoding, leaving the example '#ABC123DEF' in the schema to carry the burden. This does not compensate for low schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (recent battle log for a player tag) and enumerates the data fields returned. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'player' (likely profile) and 'events_rotation'.
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 when to use the tool (when you need a player's recent battle history) but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling list is not referenced in the description.
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.