guildFetch Wynncraft guild details by name or prefix (set by='prefix' to look up by tag); returns member list, level, XP, territories, and seasonal rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | "name" (default) | "prefix" | |
| name_or_prefix | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name_or_prefix": "Wynncraft"
+ },
+ {
+ "by": "prefix",
+ "name_or_prefix": "WC"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Guild details from Wynncraft API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing returned data (member list, level, XP, territories, seasonal rating) without contradicting annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and parameter flexibility. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present, return values are documented. The description mentions specific return fields for context. Two parameters with one required and examples provided; this is comprehensive for a fetch tool.
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 50% (only 'by' has a description). The description adds that 'by' can be 'name' or 'prefix', but 'name_or_prefix' lacks description in both schema and description. The examples in schema partially compensate.
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 specifies the tool's action ('Fetch') and resource ('Wynncraft guild details'), with methods for lookup by name or prefix. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'guild_list' which lists guilds.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on using the 'by' parameter with values 'name' or 'prefix' for tag lookup. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context of siblings like 'guild_list' offers implicit differentiation.
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.
The set is split between Wynncraft game data tools and a large Pipeworx data cluster, and within the Pipeworx cluster there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (the beta is currently identical), ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence do essentially the same thing at different granularities, and six polymarket_* tools cover overlapping prediction-market functionality. An agent would frequently struggle to choose the right tool.
Snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern dominates (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are internally consistent. However, there is a notable mix of noun-only tools (guild, item_database, leaderboard, player, news) and the server is named Wynncraft while the majority of tools are Pipeworx-branded, which breaks overall coherence.
40 tools is well beyond the borderline range, and the count is inflated by redundancy: multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several overlapping polymarket tools, a memory trio, and subscription management that arguably belong to a separate server. The Wynncraft portion alone would be nicely scoped (~9 tools), but the merged surface feels heavy and unfocused.
The Wynncraft side offers solid read coverage of players, guilds, items, leaderboards, news, and online status, which is appropriate for the domain. The Pipeworx side covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, and feedback, leaving few obvious dead ends for the stated meta-purposes.