The complete YouGame SDK reference: leaderboards (gameOver / submitScore), beat-my-score links, online multiplayer with matchmaking, friend invites, skill ratings, and coins. One script tag, no account needed.
| 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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by noting that integration requires 'One script tag' and 'no account needed,' which helps an agent understand access and setup expectations.
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 what the tool is, then compresses the scope and setup into an efficient list. Every clause adds information, with no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter reference tool, the description adequately covers what the reference includes and key access characteristics. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the form of the returned reference, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema fully reflects this with an empty properties object. The description has no parameter semantics to explain, and the feature list provides the relevant selection context, so the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.
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 identifies the resource as 'the complete YouGame SDK reference' and enumerates covered areas (leaderboards, multiplayer, matchmaking, friend invites, skill ratings, coins). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_publish_guide, which focuses on a different reference topic.
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 when an agent needs SDK integration information and lists the topics it covers. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_publish_guide or search, so the routing guidance is only implicit.
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.