list_platformsList all gaming platforms in the RAWG database, with game counts per platform (e.g. PC, PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X, Nintendo Switch).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own RAWG API key for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the output includes game counts per platform, but does not detail other behaviors (e.g., pagination, ordering).
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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key information (list all platforms with game counts) directly.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. Minor missing details like pagination are acceptable given the simplicity.
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 100% for the single optional parameter _apiKey, which already has a good description. The tool description adds no further parameter insight, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool lists all gaming platforms in the RAWG database with game counts per platform, and provides concrete examples (PC, PlayStation 5, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 sibling tools like list_genres or search_games. The description only states its function without usage context.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, bet_research overlaps heavily with polymarket_edges, and entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/validate_claim all pull from the same SEC/news fundamentals space. The memory trio and game lookup tools are distinct, but too many other tools could be confused for one another.
The surface is uniformly snake_case and has some strong families (list_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but it mixes verb-led names (search_games, remember, validate_claim) with noun-led names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) and brand-style names like ask_pipeworx. There is a pattern, but it is not a single consistent one.
35 tools is a heavy surface, and the set feels sprawling rather than focused: a four-tool RAWG game submodule sits alongside a general-purpose research platform, Polymarket edge tooling, memory helpers, subscriptions, feedback, and meta-utilities. Many of these could have been consolidated or split into separate servers.
As a general data-research and prediction-market platform the coverage is strong, with lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, research fan-out, and subscription flows. But for a server named Rawg, the game domain is thinly covered with only search/get/list tools and no game-detail enrichment or broader browsing surface, leaving the core domain feeling like an afterthought.