Skip to main content
Glama

Brawl Stars

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Within a Source

search_within
Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record. Pass the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result) plus a natural-language query; get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter, and every passage carries an offset so the agent can verify a verbatim quote. Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document. BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document text to search inside (max ~200K chars).
limitNoMax passages to return (1-20, default 5).
queryYesNatural-language query — what passages do you want? E.g. "supply-chain risk", "fiscal year 2024 revenue", "drug interactions with warfarin".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing (500-char overlapping windows), the 200K char cap, and truncation-flagging. It also explains the return format (offsets and similarity scores), which is behavior not captured in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, each serving a purpose: action, use case, sibling pairing, and technical constraints. No filler — it's front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, when-to-use, technical behavior, return format, and a sibling pairing, which is complete for a tool with no output schema and only 3 params. The 200K cap and offset detail address the main operational concerns an agent would have.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents text, query, and limit. The description adds context for the text parameter ('e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article') but does not provide significant additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record', a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining the workflow: 'fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and contrasts it with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding. This gives the agent a clear decision rule for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources