Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Brawl Stars

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rankings Clubs

rankings_clubs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Country club rankings.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "limit": 30,
      "countryCode": "US"
    },
    "name": "rankings_clubs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNo
limitNo
beforeNo
countryCodeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsNo
pagingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "countryCode": "US",
+    "limit": 30
+  },
+  {
+    "countryCode": "DE"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness2/5

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.

Completeness1/5

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.

Parameters1/5

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.

Purpose2/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

All Brawl Stars toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources