rankings_clubsCountry club rankings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| 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: +[
+ {
+ "countryCode": "US",
+ "limit": 30
+ },
+ {
+ "countryCode": "DE"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Club name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rank": {
+ "description": "Ranking position",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tag": {
+ "description": "Club tag",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "trophies": {
+ "description": "Club 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. However, the description adds no extra behavior information beyond what annotations imply. It does not describe pagination behavior, data scope, or any caveats, so the burden is on the annotations alone.
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 under-specified. While it is short, it is not conciseness—it omits essential information. A useful description would be at least one full sentence covering the tool's action and key parameters. The current fragment does not earn its place as it provides no actionable value.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'rankings' means, how the parameters interact, or what kind of data will be returned. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the absence of any explanatory text. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
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%, leaving the description to explain parameters. It fails to do so: the description is a single vague phrase with no mention of after, limit, before, or countryCode. There is no explanation of what these parameters control, making it impossible for an agent to construct correct arguments based on the description.
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?
Description is 'Country club rankings.' which merely restates the title 'Rankings Clubs' in a slightly different word order. It lacks a verb or explicit action, making it a noun phrase rather than a clear instruction. It also does not distinguish from sibling tools like rankings_brawlers or rankings_players.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description gives no hint about how countryCode, limit, before, and after should be used or why one would choose this over rankings_players.
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.