user_badgesBadges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| sortOrder | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of badge objects | |
| nextPageCursor | No | Cursor for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "user_id": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "sortOrder": "Asc",
+ "user_id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "User badges response",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of badge objects",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "awardedDate": {
+ "description": "Date awarded (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Badge description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "displayDescription": {
+ "description": "Display description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "displayName": {
+ "description": "Display name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "enabled": {
+ "description": "Whether badge is enabled",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "iconImageId": {
+ "description": "Icon image ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Badge ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Badge name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "nextPageCursor": {
+ "description": "Cursor for pagination",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare, such as rate limits, data freshness, or ordering behavior. It fails to leverage the opportunity to disclose additional traits.
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 concise (one word) but at the expense of usefulness. This is under-specification, not efficient communication. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is no sentence.
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?
Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that exists but is not mentioned, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to use this tool effectively.
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 tool description does not explain any parameter. What does 'limit' do? What values are valid for 'sortOrder'? The examples in the schema offer minimal hint, but no textual clarification is provided.
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 is just 'Badges.' – a noun, not a verb phrase. It vaguely indicates the topic but does not state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve badges for a user). Compared to sibling tools like 'user' or 'user_followers_count', it lacks a clear action or scope.
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. The sibling list includes many user-related tools, but the description offers 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Roblox and Pipeworx domains. However, the three variants of ask_pipeworx (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could cause confusion, as could deep_research vs ask_pipeworx.
Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (user_followers_count), verb_noun with underscores (ask_pipeworx), and camelCase (recall, forget). Roblox tools follow a consistent 'user_' prefix, but Pipeworx tools lack a uniform pattern.
41 tools is excessive for a server named 'Roblox'. The majority of tools are Pipeworx data utilities, which are unrelated to the server's apparent focus. This overloading undermines coherence.
Coverage within the Roblox domain is basic (user profiles, friends, games) but misses common features like asset details or group management. Pipeworx appears comprehensive for data lookups, but the overall set lacks unified domain completeness.