Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Multiplayer Agent

by com.multiplayeragent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Enable a portal / federated login

enable_login_provider
Idempotent

Let players sign in with a portal or federated account via player.loginExternal({ provider, token }). Self-serve providers: 'wavedash' (games on wavedash.com; token = (await Wavedash.getUserJwt()).data) and 'google' (Google Identity Services; token = the GIS ID-token credential). The server verifies every token against fixed, provider-published keys; you only supply public pins. wavedash: pass gameId = the gcid of the user's PRODUCTION game (ask them; or read it off a production token with verify_login_token); without it, tokens from any Wavedash game (incl. playtests) are accepted. google: clientId is required. Re-run to change the config (e.g. once the game id is known). Then verify with verify_login_token.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "enable_login_provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gameNoWhich game to act on: its publishable key (pk_…) or its exact name. Defaults to the x-mp-game header, then your primary game.
gameIdNowavedash only: the production Wavedash game id, pinned against the token's gcid claim.
clientIdNogoogle only: the OAuth client id (…apps.googleusercontent.com).
providerYesWhich provider to enable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that the server verifies tokens against fixed provider-published keys and that the caller only supplies public pins. It also discloses a security-relevant consequence: omitting gameId for wavedash accepts tokens from any Wavedash game, including playtests.

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?

The description is dense but well organized: it front-loads the core action, then provider-specific requirements, then verification. Every sentence adds operational value, and nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a configuration mutation with no output schema, the description provides the necessary context: provider-specific token handling, required pinning behavior, the effect of omitting gameId, and the post-change verification step. The annotations already cover mutability, idempotency, and non-destructiveness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it gives the exact token values for wavedash and Google, explains that gameId should be the user's production gcid, and explains what happens if gameId is omitted. It also reinforces that clientId is required for Google.

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 and resource: enabling portal or federated login via player.loginExternal({ provider, token }). It explicitly names the supported providers ('wavedash' and 'google') and distinguishes this setup operation from verification by directing the agent to verify_login_token afterward.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states exactly when and how to use the tool for each provider, including required token sources and provider-specific configuration. It also gives a clear follow-up path by saying to verify with verify_login_token, and notes that re-running changes the config.

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

All Multiplayer Agent toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources