Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games

Get the QA Tool link for an archive

get_archive_qa_tool_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

A link that opens an unpacked archive (processing DONE) in the Playgama QA Tool, where a human plays it and submits it to moderation. mode: certification opens the certification page, whose Build Startup section shows why the Bridge SDK did not initialize — get_bridge_sdk_docs has the integration docs; it unlocks nothing. Also answers processing, failedAt and bridgeSdk.

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>",
      "archiveId": "<archiveId>"
    },
    "name": "get_archive_qa_tool_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	Optional. `certification` opens the QA Tool’s certification page, whose Build Startup section shows why the Playgama Bridge SDK did not initialize — the link to hand out for an archive with `bridgeSdk: NOT_FOUND`. Leave it out for the ordinary testing page
`archiveId`	Yes	Archive id, as answered by start_archive_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"

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / mode

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. `certification` opens the QA Tool’s certification page, whose Build Startup section shows why the Playgama Bridge SDK did not initialize — the link to hand out for an archive with `bridgeSdk: NOT_FOUND`. Leave it out for the ordinary testing page",
+  "enum": [
+    "certification"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real behavior: the destination is a human-played QA page that feeds moderation submission, and certification mode surfaces a Build Startup failure explanation. It also discloses some return payload keys ('processing', 'failedAt', 'bridgeSdk'), though it never says what the tool does if the archive is not yet DONE.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries non-redundant information, including the corrective 'it unlocks nothing'. The delivery is dense and fragmentary (semicolon-chained clauses, a bare final sentence listing return fields), which slightly hurts scanability but not information density.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return story; it does so partially, naming the link plus three status fields. Combined with the required applicationId/archiveId provenance hints in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a fuller picture of the response shape would close the last gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the decisive semantic for the only non-trivial parameter: 'mode: certification' is for archives with bridgeSdk: NOT_FOUND and shows why the Bridge SDK did not initialize. That is genuine meaning beyond the enum's own description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening clause names the concrete artifact produced ('A link that opens an unpacked archive in the Playgama QA Tool') and pins the prerequisite archive state ('processing' DONE), so the agent knows exactly what it is getting. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling get_local_game_qa_tool_link, leaving the archive-vs-local distinction to be inferred from the parameters.

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 states the precondition for use (archive must be in the DONE 'processing' state) and routes the agent to get_bridge_sdk_docs when integration docs rather than a link are wanted, plus clarifies the link 'unlocks nothing'. What is missing is an explicit exclusion naming get_local_game_qa_tool_link as the choice for un-uploaded local games.

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?