The games the API key's creator has published on YouGame: slug, URL, title, version, plays, SDK features. Needs the creator's API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Only when the key could not be set as the Authorization header of the MCP connection: the creator's API key (yg_…). Prefer the header (or the YOUGAME_API_KEY environment variable): a key passed here ends up in the agent's transcript and tool logs. |
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 the auth need ('Needs the creator's API key'), and the parameter schema supplies additional context that passing the key in the call exposes it in transcripts/logs. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent important safety-relevant behavior.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return fields; the second states the auth requirement. It is efficient, though starting with an imperative verb would improve structure.
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 read-only list tool with just one optional parameter, the definition is nearly complete. It lists the returned fields, compensating for the lack of an output schema, and the schema provides strong parameter guidance. The main gaps are the absence of pagination/ordering details and sibling differentiation, but these are not critical for basic 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%, and the api_key parameter is extremely well documented in the schema: when to send it, how to avoid it, and the security implications. The tool description itself only says the creator's key is needed, which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource (the games the API key creator has published on YouGame) and enumerates the returned fields (slug, URL, title, version, plays, SDK features). It is not a tautology and the scope is understandable. It loses a point because it uses a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'update_game'. The only usage-related statement, 'Needs the creator's API key,' is an authentication prerequisite rather than a decision rule for tool selection.
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.