Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games

Confirm a cover upload

confirm_cover_upload

Destructive

Step 3 of 3, after the PUT: checks the file (the started format, the exact slot size, a complete image), publishes it and puts it into its slot; replaced names the cover taken out. Refused with 409 while nothing is uploaded, 422 when the file does not fit (the reason is given; start a new upload), 502 when it could not be published (not confirmed). Safe to repeat.

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": {
      "applicationId": "<applicationId>",
      "mediaId": "<mediaId>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_cover_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mediaId`	Yes	Media id, as answered by start_cover_upload
`applicationId`	Yes	Game id from list_applications

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / applicationId / description

Previous value: -"Application (game) id, as returned by list_applications"New value: +"Game id from list_applications"

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: validation checks, publication and slot placement, the `replaced` result, and specific 409/422/502 outcomes. The phrase 'Safe to repeat' should be read carefully against idempotentHint=false, though it is not a direct read/write contradiction.

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 front-loaded, leading with the step position and then packing in validation, replacement, error, and retry details. Every clause carries useful operational information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly: prerequisites, validation behavior, error handling, and the `replaced` return field. Authentication is not covered, but the annotations and workflow context make the definition complete enough.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema as coming from start_cover_upload and list_applications. The description adds workflow context but no additional parameter meaning.

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 opens with 'Step 3 of 3, after the PUT' and names the concrete actions: validate the started format, exact slot size, and image completeness, then publish and place the cover. This clearly distinguishes it from start_cover_upload and confirm_archive_upload.

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?

It provides sequencing (step 3 after the PUT) and failure routing: 409 when nothing is uploaded, 422 when the file does not fit and a new upload is needed. It does not explicitly name start_cover_upload as the prerequisite tool, but the workflow context is clear.

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

All Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?