Game Dev Outsourcing Directory

Search game outsourcing studios

search_studios

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find game development outsourcing studios in this directory by service, country, region, engine, platform, art style, team size, or free text in the studio name and description. Start here for any "who can build / animate / port / co-develop X" or "studios in " question. Returns up to 25 studios with their profile URLs plus the true number of matches, so you can say "10 of 214" instead of implying you have seen the whole directory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many studios to return. Capped at 25; the "total" field always reports the real number of matches.
`query`	No	Free text matched against studio name, tagline and description. Use for a studio name or a distinctive word, not for a facet you can filter on — "Poland" belongs in "country", not here.
`engine`	No	Game engine the studio works in. The display label or the site's URL slug is accepted as well as the code below.
`region`	No	Broad region, when the buyer has not named a country. Ignored if "country" is set. The display label or the site's URL slug is accepted as well as the code below.
`country`	No	Country the studio is based in. The display label or the site's URL slug is accepted as well as the code below.
`service`	No	The kind of work the studio does. The display label or the site's URL slug is accepted as well as the code below.
`artStyle`	No	Art style the studio works in. The display label or the site's URL slug is accepted as well as the code below.
`platform`	No	Platform the studio ships to. The display label or the site's URL slug is accepted as well as the code below.
`teamSize`	No	Headcount band. The display label or the site's URL slug is accepted as well as the code below.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes	Matches in the directory, before the cap. Quote this number.
`capped`	No
`caveats`	Yes	Standing limitations of this data. Do not present a result as vetted.
`studios`	Yes
`citation`	Yes	Attribution line to reproduce when quoting this.
`returned`	Yes
`browseUrl`	Yes	The site page that shows this same filter.
`appliedFilters`	No	What was actually filtered on, plus the ordering used.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral details: returns up to 25 studios, includes profile URLs, and provides the true match count ('10 of 214') enabling accurate reporting. This goes beyond what annotations capture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states purpose and scope; the second adds usage guidance and return behavior. No redundant words or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter optional-filter search tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers when to use it, what it returns (URLs, total count, up-to-25 limit), and how to phrase queries. It doesn't explain boolean combining of filters, but the schema and enums handle that. This is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described, including enums and accepted input formats. The description merely summarizes the filterable dimensions without adding new semantics. It does clarify that free text searches name/tagline/description, which is already in the query param description. Since the schema carries the burden, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Find' plus the resource 'game development outsourcing studios in this directory', and enumerates the filter dimensions (service, country, region, engine, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_studio' (single studio) and generic 'search' by framing this as the entry point for studio discovery.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Start here for any ... question', giving clear when-to-use guidance for common user intents. It doesn't mention specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the 'start here' phrasing provides a strong contextual cue. It also advises on how to report results ('instead of implying you have seen the whole directory'), which guides usage behavior.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Game Dev Outsourcing Directory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct: search vs search_studios is clear, and list_answers/list_rankings getters are well-separated. However, fetch overlaps somewhat with get_answer/get_ranking/get_studio in that it can retrieve the same underlying documents, though the descriptions clarify that fetch is for raw text from search results while the getters are structured.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with consistent verbs (get_, list_, search_), but fetch and estimate_project_cost deviate slightly. The mixed verbs are still intuitive and not chaotic, so the set is easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a directory server, covering search, retrieval, listing, statistics, and cost estimation without redundancy or bloat. Each tool serves a clear purpose.

Completeness5/5

The surface fully covers the directory's read-only domain: searching studios and general documents, retrieving studio details and full text, listing and fetching buyer guides and rankings, plus directory statistics and cost estimation. No obvious gaps or dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?