Skip to main content
Glama

Giantbomb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search

search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Giant Bomb by keyword across resource types (game, franchise, character, concept, object, location, person, company, video); returns name, resource_type, and deck for each match. NOTE: API offline as of 2026-05.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNo
queryYes
resourcesNoComma-sep: game,franchise,character,concept,object,location,person,company,video

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError message if request failed
limitNoResults limit
offsetNoResults offset
versionNoAPI version
status_codeNoHTTP status code
page_resultsNoArray of search results
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: +[
+  {
+    "query": "The Legend of Zelda"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 10,
+    "query": "Mario",
+    "resources": "character,game"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Search results across Giant Bomb resources",
+  "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"
+    },
+    "page_results": {
+      "description": "Array of search results",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "deck": {
+            "description": "Short description",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "guid": {
+            "description": "Globally unique identifier",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Resource ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "image": {
+            "description": "Image data",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Resource name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "resource_type": {
+            "description": "Type of resource",
+            "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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the specific return fields (name, resource_type, deck) and the offline status, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences plus a note: front-loaded with core functionality, no wasted words. The offline notice is appropriately placed at the end.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main function and return fields, but lacks pagination details for 'page' and 'limit' parameters. Given the offline note, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 low (25%), but the description explains the 'resources' parameter by listing allowed types and hinting at comma-separated format. However, it does not describe 'page' or 'limit' parameters. Partial compensation.

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 clearly states it searches across multiple Giant Bomb resource types and specifies the return fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_within' or specific entity tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a usage-critical note that the API is offline as of 2026-05, telling agents not to use it. But it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., specific entity tools).

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