The rules a browser game must follow to run on YouGame (build layout, paths, limits, the runtime sandbox, what usually breaks and how to fix it) plus how to verify and upload. Read this first when making a game YouGame-ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context about what content the guide covers, including build layout, paths, limits, the runtime sandbox, common failures, and verification/upload steps, without contradicting the 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core content and the second sentence provides the direct usage instruction, making efficient use of every word.
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 parameterless read-only guide tool, the description provides sufficient context: what the guide covers, why an agent would need it, and when to read it. There is no output schema or complex behavior that would require additional explanation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema for the description to supplement. The baseline of 4 applies here, and the description appropriately focuses on what the returned guide contains rather than parameter details that do not exist.
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 that this tool retrieves the rules and verification steps for making a browser game YouGame-ready, with a specific resource ('publish guide') and content areas. It is distinct from siblings like check_build or publish_game by its focus on rules and how-to guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 'Read this first when making a game YouGame-ready' gives an explicit usage context and priority. It does not mention when to use alternative sibling tools instead, but the 'read this first' instruction is clear enough to guide an agent toward this tool at the start of the workflow.
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.