characterSingle character.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guid_or_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Character ID | |
| url | No | Giant Bomb URL | |
| deck | No | Short description | |
| guid | No | Globally unique identifier | |
| name | No | Character name | |
| error | No | Error message if not found | |
| image | No | Character image data | |
| version | No | API version | |
| description | No | Full description | |
| status_code | No | HTTP status code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "guid_or_id": "34265"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Single character details",
+ "properties": {
+ "deck": {
+ "description": "Short description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Full description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error message if not found",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "guid": {
+ "description": "Globally unique identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Character ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "image": {
+ "description": "Character image data",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Character name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status_code": {
+ "description": "HTTP status code",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Giant Bomb URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "description": "API version",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds nothing beyond 'Single character.', offering no behavioral insights like what data is returned or any side effects.
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?
Extremely short (2 words) but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The description is not front-loaded with useful information.
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?
Despite having an output schema and one required parameter, the description provides no context about return values or how the tool fits among 40+ siblings. It is completely inadequate for understanding the tool's role.
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% and the description fails to explain the required parameter 'guid_or_id'. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is just a string type.
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 'Single character.' is a tautology that merely restates the name 'character' without specifying any action (e.g., get, retrieve) or distinguishing from siblings like 'games' or 'companies'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'entity_profile' or 'search'. The description provides no context for selection.
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.
Several tool families have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route into the same underlying catalog with only subtle differences, and the six polymarket_* tools overlap heavily (edge scanning vs. fill-risk vs. arbitrage vs. cross-venue spread). Compounding this, the server is named 'Giantbomb' but only 7 of 38 tools relate to that domain, so an agent cannot predict what this server does from its name.
All tool names are snake_case, which helps, but the verb pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun-prefix subjects (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), and even a versioned name (ask_pipeworx_beta) that breaks its own family's pattern. There is no predictable naming scheme an agent could use to guess a tool's name.
38 tools is well past the 25+ 'too many' threshold, and the count is split across two unrelated concerns: ~7 Giant Bomb tools (several explicitly marked 'API offline as of 2026-05') and ~31 tools for a Pipeworx data-research and Polymarket-trading platform. The number is not merely heavy; it serves no single coherent purpose.
For the declared Giant Bomb domain, the surface is incomplete (missing videos, franchises, reviews, people, and other known resource types) and largely dead since the underlying API is offline. The Pipeworx half is comparatively complete with routing, grounded answers, research, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, but that coverage is attached to the wrong server identity and does not fill the gaps in the claimed purpose.