rankings_playersCountry player 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": 50
+ },
+ {
+ "countryCode": "GB"
+ }
+]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": "Player 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?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or response structure, leaving the tool's runtime behavior largely undisclosed.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with four parameters and no other documentation, a single noun phrase does not earn its place as an adequate description.
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's complexity (four parameters, no schema descriptions) and the existence of an output schema, the description still fails to explain how to use the tool effectively. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral notes, making it incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It only hints at countryCode via 'Country' and says nothing about limit, after, or before. This is insufficient for a four-parameter tool.
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 player rankings.' names a resource and implies a retrieval operation, but it lacks a specific verb and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like rankings_brawlers or player. It is more than a pure tautology because it adds the 'Country' filter, but it remains vague about what the tool actually returns.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as player, player_battles, or rankings_brawlers. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.