Skip to main content
Glama

Squiggle

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ladder

ladder
Read-onlyIdempotent

Projected ladder per source.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNo
roundNo
sourceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ladderNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / count
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Number of items returned.",
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / items
      Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "properties": {
-      "losses": {
-        "description": "Projected losses",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "points": {
-        "description": "Projected points",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "position": {
-        "description": "Projected ladder position",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "team": {
-        "description": "Team name",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "wins": {
-        "description": "Projected wins",
-        "type": "number"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / ladder
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "dummy": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "mean_rank": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "percentage": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "rank": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "round": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "source": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "sourceid": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "swarms": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "team": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "teamid": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "updated": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "wins": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "year": {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "items",
-  "count"
-]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "round": 8,
+    "source": 2,
+    "year": 2024
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "losses": {
+            "description": "Projected losses",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "points": {
+            "description": "Projected points",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "position": {
+            "description": "Projected ladder position",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "team": {
+            "description": "Team name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "wins": {
+            "description": "Projected wins",
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context: 'projected' suggests a forecast or estimate, but there is no explanation of what 'projected' means, how the 'source' parameter affects results, or any other behavioral trait. It adds barely more than the structured annotations.

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 only one short sentence, so it is terse, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential information such as a verb, parameter meanings, and usage context. While it is front-loaded, the content is too sparse to justify its brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite an output schema existing, the description is far too minimal for a tool with 3 parameters and sibling tools sharing related concepts. It does not define what a 'ladder' is, what 'projected' means, or how the parameters filter the result. The agent would be unable to correctly select and invoke this tool based on the available text.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides almost no parameter meaning. Only 'per source' hints that the 'source' parameter is a filter, but 'year' and 'round' are completely unexplained. With three optional parameters and no elaboration, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Projected ladder per source' is a noun phrase without a clear verb. It conveys that the tool provides a projected ladder data item per source, but 'ladder' is ambiguous without context and not effectively differentiated from the related 'standings' tool. It is not a pure tautology, but it is vague and does not state an explicit action.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'standings', 'sources', or 'teams'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The lack of any contextual direction leaves the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Squiggle 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicate query entry points (beta is currently identical), while ladder/standings, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage also blur together. An agent would struggle to reliably pick the right tool without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of names are snake_case and many follow a readable verb_noun shape, such as resolve_entity, validate_claim, and list_subscriptions. However, the Squiggle/AFL tools are bare nouns (games, ladder, sources, standings, teams, tips), and the polymarket_* / pipeworx_* prefixes do not use one consistent verb style, so it is not a fully uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is in the too-many band, and the sprawl is compounded by mixing unrelated domains under one server: AFL stats, a huge Pipeworx data-routing layer, prediction-market analytics, AI visibility checks, npm dependency review, and llms.txt generation. The set feels like several merged servers rather than one well-scoped MCP.

Completeness3/5

The query/research surface is broad and covers many subdomains, and the subscription lifecycle is reasonably complete with subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts. However, pipeworx:// citation URIs are prominently returned but no tool fetches a cited record directly, the AFL side lacks player-level data, and subscriptions cannot be updated.

Resources