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. Take the link from the answer; never build it.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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	Application (game) id, as returned by list_applications

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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?

The annotations already communicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by saying the answer also contains `processing`, `failedAt`, and `bridgeSdk`, that this tool 'unlocks nothing', and by explicitly warning the agent to take the link from the answer rather than build it. This is useful non-obvious behavior, though edge cases and response shape are not fully expanded.

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-structured: it front-loads the core behavior, then covers the mode variant, related answer fields, and a critical do-not-build instruction. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming returned fields and telling the agent where to find the link. It also states the key precondition (`processing` DONE) and the certification-mode context. It could be more complete about exact output structure or failure behavior, but for a read-only link retrieval it is largely sufficient.

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 the schema already explains `mode`'s certification behavior plus the provenance of `applicationId` and `archiveId`. The main description reinforces the mode semantics but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 description makes the deliverable clear: a Playgama QA Tool link for an unpacked archive, with mode-specific behavior and related fields like `processing`, `failedAt`, and `bridgeSdk`. It is unambiguous about the object being an archive rather than a local game, though it never explicitly names a sibling such as `get_local_game_qa_tool_link`, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives concrete conditional guidance: the default is the ordinary testing page, `mode: certification` is for the Build Startup/certification page when Bridge SDK initialization is the concern, and `get_bridge_sdk_docs` is pointed to for integration docs. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for status' or 'do not use this for local game links' exclusion, so it is not a 5.

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

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

Need Help?