Returns the full text of one YouGame documentation section by the id search returned (for example "sdk#leaderboards").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Section id from search, e.g. sdk#leaderboards |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the full text of the section is returned and that the id comes from a prior search, which supplements the annotation coverage without contradicting it.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and outcome, then specifies the input format and provenance, making every part informative.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what input is needed, and where that input comes from. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the id is a section id from search and gives an example, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full text of one YouGame documentation section'), and it specifies the input is the id returned by search. It is distinct from the search tool, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from content-related siblings like get_sdk_reference or get_publish_guide.
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 phrase 'by the id search returned' provides clear workflow context, implying this tool should be used after search and to retrieve a specific section. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.
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 tools separate into clear workflows: documentation lookup (search/fetch/get_publish_guide/get_sdk_reference), build validation, and the publishing lifecycle (prepare_submission, publish_game, update_game), so most purposes are unambiguous. The four documentation tools overlap somewhat, though their descriptions distinguish browsing a full document from fetching a specific section.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_build, prepare_submission, publish_game, update_game), and the documentation tools consistently use get_. Minor deviations like the bare verbs fetch and search and the noun-phrase my_games keep it from being perfectly uniform.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range, and each tool occupies a clear place in the YouGame workflow: documentation, build checking, submission, publishing, updating, and listing published games. No tool feels redundant or superfluous.
The set covers the full lifecycle from build validation to draft review to live publication and version updates, plus documentation search and a way to list existing games. Missing operations like unpublishing/deleting a game or retrieving details for a single game are minor gaps that can be worked around with my_games and the review-link flow.