leaderboardFetch a Wynncraft leaderboard by type (e.g. 'combatGlobalLevel', 'guildLevel', 'warsCompletion'); returns ranked entries up to resultLimit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| resultLimit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "overall"
+ },
+ {
+ "resultLimit": 50,
+ "type": "level"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Leaderboard data from Wynncraft API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns ranked entries, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination or error handling.
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 immediately identifies the verb ('Fetch'), resource ('Wynncraft leaderboard'), and parameters. Every word adds value, with no wasted text.
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 the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's purpose and parameters. It could optionally mention pagination or default behavior, but it is adequate 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds critical meaning: it explains the 'type' parameter with concrete examples and clarifies that 'resultLimit' controls the number of returned entries. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 fetches a Wynncraft leaderboard by type, with specific examples like 'combatGlobalLevel', 'guildLevel', and 'warsCompletion'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only leaderboard-related tool.
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 explains when to use (to fetch leaderboards by type) and mentions the resultLimit parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Since no sibling is a leaderboard tool, the context is clear but not fully elaborated.
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.