Skip to main content
Glama

Playgama MCP - Publish & Manage HTML5 Games

by com.playgama.developer
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read the submission state

get_submission_state
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether the game can be submitted to moderation now and, if not, why — the first rule the submit itself would refuse with. reason, in that order: ORGANIZATION_BANNED, MODERATION_UNAVAILABLE (the game cannot go to moderation, catalogAvailable is false: publish it to the sandbox), missing certification, a cooldown after a failed moderation, the state of the build being submitted (ARCHIVE_PENDING, ARCHIVE_FAILED, ARCHIVE_CHECKING while its check is still running, or the archive’s own reason code — get_archive_status explains it), ARCHIVE_NOT_BUILDABLE (the build has no Bridge version or Bridge config to build with: integrate the Bridge SDK and upload it again), FORM_INCOMPLETE (details names the fields to fill, the title included), COVERS_INCOMPLETE (not all three covers are in place: upload the ones emptySlots names), or nothing changed since the last submit. message is the console’s wording of that refusal: relay it word for word. Name in archiveId the build you are asking about — the one a submit would freeze. While catalogAvailable is false the answer is always MODERATION_UNAVAILABLE, whatever the build: never tell the developer the game can be submitted. A game never submitted to moderation, or one moderation rejected or postponed, whose sandbox is not blocked (get_sandbox_state), opens once its sandbox reaches 100 plays and an average play time of 5 minutes, counted once a day. A game moderation took off, or whose sandbox is blocked, only Playgama can reopen: the sandbox targets do not. A human submits to moderation in the console. With reviewType AUTO the verdict is send_playgama_catalog_update’s: the same reasons, then AUTO_REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE — the game is not live in the Playgama catalog (autoReviewPlatforms is empty), so only moderation can take it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
archiveIdYesThe build this answer judges — the archive a submit would name. get_application and get_launch_steps answer the archives of the game; an archive of another game is refused
reviewTypeNoOptional. MANUAL (left out): judge a submit to moderation, which a human sends from the console. AUTO: judge send_playgama_catalog_update — an update of the game live in the Playgama catalog without moderation
applicationIdYesApplication (game) id, as returned by list_applications

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewType
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. MANUAL (left out): judge a submit to moderation, which a human sends from the console. AUTO: judge send_playgama_catalog_update — an update of the game live in the Playgama catalog without moderation",
+  "enum": [
+    "MANUAL",
+    "AUTO"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / archiveId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The build this answer judges — the archive a submit would name. get_application and get_launch_steps answer the archives of the game; an archive of another game is refused",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "applicationId"
-]New value: +[
+  "applicationId",
+  "archiveId"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), so the description carries the behavioral load and does so richly: ordered reason codes, the hard invariant that while catalogAvailable is false the answer is always MODERATION_UNAVAILABLE and the developer must never be told the game is submittable, the 100-plays/5-minute/day-counted unlock rule, and the Playgama-only reopen condition. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, and given the absent output schema much of the reason-code content is necessary. However, it is delivered as one dense paragraph with nested parentheticals, making the enumerated reason codes hard to scan; a structured list would convey the same information with less parsing effort.

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 must define the response shape, and it does: it accounts for reason, message, archiveId, catalogAvailable, emptySlots and details, and explains the ordering semantics of reason. Combined with the state-machine rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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; the description adds genuine meaning on top by characterizing archiveId as 'the build you are asking about — the one a submit would freeze' and restating reviewType's AUTO/MANUAL split in terms of which downstream operation is being judged. It does not add syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, but the conceptual framing is useful.

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 opening states a precise predicate ('Whether the game can be submitted to moderation now and, if not, why') and frames the return as the first refusal rule a submit would hit. It explicitly names siblings it is not — get_archive_status ('explains it'), get_sandbox_state, and send_playgama_catalog_update — so the agent can separate this read-only verdict tool from its neighbors without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives strong conditions: MANUAL judges a console-submitted moderation request, AUTO judges send_playgama_catalog_update, and it notes that a human (not this tool) performs the actual submit. It names the alternative tools for adjacent questions, but never states an explicit 'do not call this for X' exclusion, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources