Skip to main content
Glama

Speedrun

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Leaderboard

get_leaderboard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the world-record / top-N leaderboard for a specific game category. Returns ranked runs with finish times (ISO-8601 duration plus seconds), run date, players, and weblink. Get game_id from search_games and category_id from get_categories. Example: get_leaderboard({ game_id: "o1y9wo6q", category_id: "7kjpp4k3", top: 10 })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoNumber of top-ranked runs to return (default 10)
_apiKeyNoOptional speedrun.com API key for authenticated access; omit to use the shared platform key
game_idYesSpeedrun.com game ID, as returned by search_games
category_idYesSpeedrun.com category ID, as returned by get_categories

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying return fields (finish times, date, players, weblink) and the output format (ISO-8601 duration), which goes 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?

The description is four sentences, each delivering necessary information: purpose, return fields, prerequisites, and an example. It is front-loaded and concise without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return structure, required inputs, and provides an example. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example with sample IDs and clarifies the 'top' parameter's purpose (top-N). This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches a world-record/top-N leaderboard for a specific game category, with specific verb and resource. It also lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_games and get_categories.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context by specifying that game_id and category_id come from other tools, effectively giving a workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is clear.

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

All Speedrun 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in data querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, etc.) and prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). Detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the number of similar-sounding tools increases the chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names show mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (e.g., find_user, list_subscriptions), others are noun_verb (e.g., entity_profile, bet_research), and there are prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. While subgroups are internally consistent, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools spanning speedrun.com queries, Pipeworx data access, memory management, subscriptions, and prediction markets, the server bundles multiple domains. The scope is too broad for a coherent single server; splitting into separate servers would improve usability.

Completeness4/5

Within each domain (speedrun.com, Pipeworx, Polymarket), the tool set covers key operations comprehensively, including research, arbitrage, fill risk, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to place bets), but the overall surface is well-covered for the advertised functionalities.

Resources