Wishlist Ledger

Wishlist conversion

get_wishlist_conversion

Read-onlyIdempotent

How many outstanding wishlists turned into purchases or gifts in a period (for example launch week or a sale), and what share of units sold came from wishlists. Optional per-country split. For unreleased games it returns the outstanding wishlist count instead.

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": {
      "appid": "<appid>"
    },
    "name": "get_wishlist_conversion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appid`	Yes	Steam app id, from list_games
`end_date`	No	Last day, YYYY-MM-DD. Default: the newest day with data (yesterday)
`by_country`	No
`start_date`	No	First day, YYYY-MM-DD. Default: 28 days before end_date

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already covering read-only, idempotent behavior, the description adds behavior the annotations do not: for unreleased games the tool returns the outstanding wishlist count rather than conversion. It also notes an optional per-country split. It still does not describe pagination, limits, or output format, but the unreleased-game caveat is valuable and non-obvious.

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?

One sentence with a parenthetical example and one follow-up sentence about unreleased games. It is front-loaded on the core metric. It is slightly dense with multiple clauses, but it wastes no words.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers what is measured (conversion count and unit share), the period concept, the optional split, and the unreleased-game fallback. An agent can decide whether to call it. Only return format and result granularity remain unspecified, and no output schema exists to cover them.

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 75%, and the schema already documents appid, date formats, defaults, and by_country. The description adds only the meaning of by_country as a per-country split and clarifies that the period is the conversion window. This is correct baseline behavior, but it does not materially extend the schema.

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 states a specific metric and resource: how many outstanding wishlists converted to purchases or gifts in a period, plus the share of units sold from wishlists. This clearly separates it from get_wishlist_activity and get_wishlist_breakdown, which are about wishlist volume rather than conversion, though the description never names them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Period examples ('launch week or a sale') imply when the tool is useful, and 'For unreleased games it returns...' tells the agent what happens in that case. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never routes the agent to alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Wishlist Ledger 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?