Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games

Read an archive’s status

get_archive_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

The state of one archive. state.status: CHECKING while the build check runs, then PASSED, PROBLEM or NOT_CHECKED. Poll until it is no longer CHECKING; on PROBLEM or NOT_CHECKED give the developer state.message word for word — it names what is wrong and what to do — and take state.reason as its code (get_bridge_sdk_docs has the SDK integration docs; get_archive_qa_tool_link with mode: certification shows the startup log). processing: PENDING (unconfirmed or unpacking), DONE (unpacked), FAILED with failedAt: UNPACK and errorMessage (upload a corrected zip). bridgeSdk: whether that same check found the Playgama Bridge SDK in the build — FOUND, NOT_FOUND, or PENDING while it has not answered. analysis: what the check measured — bridgeVersion and bridgeEngine, null when no check has run. Publishing and submitting are decided by state.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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"

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the full status lifecycle, including CHECKING/PASSED/PROBLEM/NOT_CHECKED, processing states such as FAILED with failedAt: UNPACK, bridgeSdk values, and analysis fields. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret the response and decide whether to retry, surface an error, or proceed.

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 description is dense but front-loaded with the core state semantics and avoids filler. It could be easier to scan with structured formatting, but nearly every sentence carries useful return-value or routing 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly across state, processing, bridgeSdk, and analysis. Combined with fully documented input parameters and safe read-only annotations, it is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 already have schema descriptions tying archiveId to start_archive_upload and applicationId to list_applications. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as one archive and explains that it reports that archive's state, including check, processing, Bridge SDK, and analysis fields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby state-reading siblings such as get_submission_state or get_sandbox_state, but the archive-specific field semantics make its purpose unambiguous.

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 operational guidance: poll while state.status is CHECKING, surface state.message verbatim on PROBLEM or NOT_CHECKED, and use get_bridge_sdk_docs or get_archive_qa_tool_link with mode: certification for supporting information. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the when-to-use and alternative-routing guidance is strong.

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?