rankings_brawlersCountry brawler rankings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| brawlerId | Yes | ||
| countryCode | Yes |
| 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: +[
+ {
+ "brawlerId": 16000000,
+ "countryCode": "US",
+ "limit": 50
+ },
+ {
+ "brawlerId": 16000001,
+ "countryCode": "BR"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Player name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rank": {
+ "description": "Ranking position",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tag": {
+ "description": "Player tag",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "trophies": {
+ "description": "Brawler 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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'rankings'—it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, filtering scope, or what exactly the returned rankings represent. The 'Country' qualifier is the only additional context, but it is minimal and does not describe underlying behavior.
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 extremely concise but not in a useful way—it is a short noun phrase that sacrifices clarity for brevity. It lacks a subject-verb structure and reads more like a subtitle than a functional description. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 five parameters, no parameter documentation, and no behavioral details, the description is grossly incomplete. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the lack of input semantics and tool purpose. The agent cannot infer when to use this tool or what it returns beyond the tautological phrase.
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 must compensate for the five parameters (after, limit, before, brawlerId, countryCode). It provides no information about parameter meanings, formats, or relationships. The description is entirely unhelpful for understanding what values are expected or how parameters interact.
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 'Country brawler rankings' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, lacking a verb or explicit action (e.g., 'retrieve', 'list'). It adds only the 'Country' modifier, which is already implied by the required 'countryCode' parameter. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like 'rankings_clubs' or 'rankings_players' beyond the resource name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what scenarios it fits, or how it differs from alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools. The only implied usage is that it relates to brawler rankings, but no context is given about when to prefer this over similar rankings tools.
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.