Skip to main content
Glama

Giantbomb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Releases

releases
Read-onlyIdempotent

List/filter releases.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
filterNo
offsetNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError message if request failed
limitNoResults limit
offsetNoResults offset
resultsNoArray of release results
versionNoAPI version
status_codeNoHTTP status code
number_of_page_resultsNoNumber of results on current page
number_of_total_resultsNoTotal results available

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "filter": "platform:94",
+    "limit": 50
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "List of game releases with filtering",
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error message if request failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "limit": {
+      "description": "Results limit",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "number_of_page_results": {
+      "description": "Number of results on current page",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "number_of_total_results": {
+      "description": "Total results available",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "offset": {
+      "description": "Results offset",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Array of release results",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "game": {
+            "description": "Associated game",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "guid": {
+            "description": "Globally unique identifier",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Release ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Release name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "platform": {
+            "description": "Platform details",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "release_date": {
+            "description": "Release date",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "description": "Giant Bomb URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status_code": {
+      "description": "HTTP status code",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "description": "API version",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, default limits, or data freshness). With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise (two words), but at the cost of essential detail. It does not front-load critical information like parameter usage or result format. A good description should be brief yet informative, but this is under-specified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has three optional parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not described), the description should explain filtering, pagination, and output structure. It fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain what 'filter' expects (e.g., format like 'platform:94' from the schema example) or how 'limit' and 'offset' control pagination. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of explicit semantics leaves room for misinterpretation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'List/filter releases' clearly identifies the action (list/filter) and resource (releases). It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings, but does not specify the type of releases (e.g., software releases, product releases), missing an opportunity for full clarity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use 'releases' versus alternative tools like 'search', 'companies', or 'platforms'. With many siblings, the absence of usage context makes it hard for an AI agent to select the correct tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Giantbomb 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources