get_fissuresList the active Void Fissures (Lith / Meso / Neo / Axi relic missions, including Steel Path and Void Storm variants) with node, mission type, enemy and time remaining. Keyless, live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | No | Platform: one of pc, ps4, xb1, swi. Default "pc". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "platform": "pc"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context with 'Keyless, live' and explicitly lists the return fields, going beyond annotation data. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes essential details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear.
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?
For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return fields and notes the keyless, live nature. It is sufficient for selection and invocation, though it lacks explicit mention of sorting, pagination, or error behavior, which may be unnecessary for this 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?
The schema fully documents the single platform parameter with a description and default (coverage 100%). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states 'List the active Void Fissures' and enumerates specific details (Lith/Meso/Neo/Axi relic missions, Steel Path/Void Storm variants) and output fields (node, mission type, enemy, time remaining). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invasions or world_state.
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 implies use for retrieving current fissure missions and adds that it is 'Keyless, live', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention exclusions. No direct contrast with similar tools is provided.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose: three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are nearly identical routers, five polymarket_* tools cover similar prediction-market ground, and the server combines a tiny Warframe component with a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket toolkit, making selection ambiguous. The server name 'Warframe' does not match the majority of tools, further muddying intent.
There is a loose snake_case convention, and several tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_fissures, list_subscriptions, search_items, validate_claim). However, single-word imperative tools (remember, recall, forget), noun-phrase names (entity_profile, world_state, deep_research), and the polymarket_* family using inconsistent second words break the pattern. It is readable but not cleanly predictable.
35 tools is far too many for a Warframe-focused server, and only 4 tools (get_fissures, get_invasions, search_items, world_state) actually relate to Warframe. The remaining 31 tools are a sprawling generic data/research/prediction-market collection that belongs to a different product, making the set bloated and unfocused for its apparent purpose.
Relative to the Warframe domain, the coverage is thin: only fissures, invasions, item search, and a combined world_state are offered, with obvious gaps like alerts, news, Nightwave, and event tracking. The broader Pipeworx/Polymarket toolset is internally comprehensive, but those tools do not serve the server's stated name and leave the Warframe scope incomplete.