needmoar.games
Server Details
Ranks Steam games by how much players like them, learned from head-to-head duels.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: search_games resolves names to IDs, game_detail provides individual game stats, and versus compares two games. No overlap in functionality.
All names follow a consistent verb_object pattern (search_games, game_detail, versus), with snake_case and clear action words.
Only 3 tools, but they cover the essential workflow: search, detail, and compare. Could be expanded with browsing or recommendations, but current count is reasonable for the niche.
Covers the core use cases of game popularity lookup and head-to-head comparison. Missing browse or list functionality, but the described purpose is well-served.
Available Tools
3 toolsgame_detailHow liked is a gameARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The community consensus for one game on needmoar.games: how liked it is (the share of a typical library it beats), its tier and rank, the full distribution of opinions, and the games players who like it also like or dislike — useful for "how popular / well-liked is X?" and "games similar to X". Pass a Steam appid — resolve names with search_games first. The response links to the game's page you can cite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid | Yes | Steam appid of the game (resolve names with search_games). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the output contents (community consensus, distribution, related games) and mentioning that the response includes a link for citation, which enriches the agent's understanding beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, conveying essential information in 2-3 sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, a slightly more structured layout (e.g., separating input from output) could improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input requirement, output contents, and use cases. It could mention potential errors or rate limits, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema describes the appid parameter well. The description mainly reiterates 'Pass a Steam appid' with no additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the full burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool gets community consensus data for a single Steam game, including likedness share, tier, rank, distribution, and related games. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools search_games (name resolution) and versus (comparison).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to pass a Steam appid and resolve names with search_games first, providing explicit usage context. It also indicates the tool's utility for questions about popularity and similarity, guiding when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_gamesResolve games to Steam appidsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Resolve one or more game names to their Steam appids on needmoar.games. Call this first to turn a title like "Hollow Knight" into the numeric appid the versus and game_detail tools need. Accepts several names at once — pass every game the user mentioned in a single call and match each to its result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max matches to return per name (1-10, default 5). | |
| queries | Yes | Game names to look up. Pass every title the user mentioned at once. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds external dependency ('on needmoar.games') and batch processing behavior, which annotations do not cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to call, and how to use parameters. No fluff, front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and parameter guidance. No gaps remaining.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description reinforces batch usage ('pass every game… in a single call'), adding value beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('game names to Steam appids'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools ('versus and game_detail tools need the numeric appid').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance to call this first, to batch multiple queries in one call, and to 'pass every game the user mentioned' for efficient resolution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
versusCompare two games head-to-headARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Head-to-head verdict for two games on needmoar.games: which one players like more, each game's community score (the share of a library it beats) and rank, and the full distribution of opinions on both. Use this to answer "do people prefer A or B?". Pass Steam appids — resolve names with search_games first. The response links to the matching /vs page you can cite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid_a | Yes | Steam appid of the first game (resolve names with search_games). | |
| appid_b | Yes | Steam appid of the second game. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description matches annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) and adds details: which game players like more, community score, rank, full distribution, links. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and outputs, second provides usage guidance and linking hint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (verdict, scores, ranks, distribution, link). Combined with annotations, it covers all essential context for a comparison tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds context: 'Steam appid' and 'resolve names with search_games', which helps agents understand how to obtain correct values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly defines the tool as head-to-head verdict for two games on needmoar.games, including specific outputs (community score, rank, distribution). Differentiates from sibling tools like game_detail and search_games by its comparative nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use ('do people prefer A or B?') and instructs to resolve names with search_games first. Could be stronger by stating when not to use, but otherwise clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!