Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games

Analyze a telemetry event and its fields

get_game_telemetry_event_analytics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preaggregated detail for one event. Call without fieldName to discover every top-level custom field and its type, coverage, cardinality and numeric or boolean summary. Call again with one fieldName to obtain its bounded top categorical JSON values and other_event_count. Nested objects and arrays are dynamic JSON values, not a fixed DTO. For performance_sample, use this tool to read the available FPS, frame-time and stutter field summaries for the requested period. Use event names discovered in get_game_telemetry_analytics; do not request raw events.

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>",
      "dateFrom": "<dateFrom>",
      "dateTo": "<dateTo>",
      "eventKind": "<eventKind>",
      "eventName": "<eventName>"
    },
    "name": "get_game_telemetry_event_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dateTo`	Yes	Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`dateFrom`	Yes	Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`eventKind`	Yes	Telemetry namespace: standard, custom, or system
`eventName`	Yes	Stable telemetry event name returned by get_game_telemetry_analytics
`fieldName`	No	Top-level payload field name. Nested JSON remains the value of this field
`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"

AddedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses preaggregation, bounded categorical results, other_event_count, and the dynamic JSON nature of nested objects and arrays. The explicit exclusion of raw-event retrieval further clarifies the tool's behavioral boundary.

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 efficient, front-loading the tool's scope and then covering discovery, drill-down, JSON behavior, a domain-specific use case, and prerequisites. Each sentence supports correct selection or invocation without filler.

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 six-parameter analytics tool with two operating modes and no output schema, the description supplies the workflow, expected summary content, response variability, and important scope restrictions. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke both modes correctly without relying on a fixed DTO assumption.

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 already 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for optional fieldName by explaining how its absence or presence changes the operation and response. It also reinforces the eventName discovery workflow, though it adds little beyond the schema for applicationId, eventKind, or the date parameters.

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 defines the tool as providing preaggregated detail for one telemetry event, with distinct field-discovery and single-field drill-down modes. It also distinguishes this workflow from get_game_telemetry_analytics and explicitly states that it does not retrieve raw events.

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 gives an explicit two-call workflow: omit fieldName to discover fields, then supply one fieldName for categorical details. It additionally directs performance_sample analysis here, tells agents to obtain event names from get_game_telemetry_analytics, and warns against requesting raw events.

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?