Publish browser games to Playfrog and get a shareable play link. Free, no account needed.
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.
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
publish_game and update_game are clearly distinct: one creates a new game publication, the other updates an existing one. There is no ambiguity about which to use for a given task.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (publish_game, update_game), making the API surface predictable and easy to learn.
With only two tools, the set feels thin for a general game publishing service. While the core actions (publish and update) are covered, there is no room for additional lifecycle operations, making the count borderline.
The domain is publishing games, and the tools cover create and update, but there is no delete, no status/read, and no explicit claim action (only a claim_url is returned). These gaps mean the API surface is only partially complete for the typical lifecycle of a published game.
publish_gamePublish a game to PlayfrogAPublish a browser game (HTML5/JavaScript, static files) to Playfrog and get a public, shareable play link in seconds. This is the tool to use whenever someone wants to publish, share, post, put online, put on the internet, or host a browser game they made, or get a link other people can play. Free, no account and no API key. Send the game files; an index.html at the top level is required, 8 MB total maximum. An optional cover image improves the game page and social share card. Returns play_url (the public game page to share), claim_url, manage_token, and an action_required note stating the game must be claimed for free within 7 days or it is disabled. Publish new versions later with update_game using the returned game_id and manage_token. Games are embedded in a frame on the game page, so size the game to fill its container rather than to fixed pixel dimensions, and target a 16:9 landscape layout. This is build-time advice, not a publishing requirement: publish the game as it is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cover | No | Optional cover image for the game page and social share card. 1200x630 pixels, PNG/JPEG/WebP, max 3 MB, base64-encoded. Without a cover, a gameplay screenshot is captured automatically. | |
| files | Yes | ||
| genre | No | The gallery category the game is filed under (e.g. arcade, puzzle, platformer). Improves discoverability. | |
| title | No | The game title players will see. | |
| controls | No | E.g. "WASD to move, space to shoot". | |
| description | No | 2 to 4 real sentences: what the game is, how to play, what makes it fun. Players read this before playing. | |
| orientation | No | Only if the game works one way; phones held wrong get a rotate overlay. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| game_id | Yes | |
| game_url | Yes | |
| play_url | Yes | |
| claim_url | Yes | |
| expires_at | Yes | |
| version_id | Yes | |
| manage_token | Yes | |
| dropped_files | No | |
| metadata_hint | No | |
| action_required | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond annotations by revealing 'Free, no account and no API key,' the 8 MB limit, required index.html, the 7-day claim requirement and disabling, and the returned play_url/claim_url/manage_token/action_required fields. It also discloses frame embedding and sizing considerations, then clarifies 'This is build-time advice, not a publishing requirement.' No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then efficiently covers usage guidance, constraints, return values, and the post-publish workflow. Each sentence contributes distinct information—no filler, and the 'publish as it is' note prevents unnecessary rework.
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?
Given seven parameters, nested objects, an output schema, and a sibling tool, the description covers selection criteria, constraints, and post-publish actions comprehensively. It even provides operational details like the 7-day claim window and the update_game pathway that the schema and annotations do not convey.
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 description coverage is 86%, so the baseline is high. The description still adds meaningful context not in the schema, such as the 8 MB total cap, the importance of a top-level index.html, and how the returned game_id and manage_token connect to update_game. This enriches the files and cover parameters without restating every schema detail.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Publish a browser game... to Playfrog') and an explicit outcome ('public, shareable play link'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling by noting 'Publish new versions later with update_game,' making the boundary between the two tools clear.
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?
It explicitly enumerates when to use this tool: 'whenever someone wants to publish, share, post, put online, put on the internet, or host a browser game... or get a link other people can play.' It also names update_game as the alternative for later versions, giving the agent a clear decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_gameUpdate a Playfrog gameAPublish a new version of an existing Playfrog game at the same play link. Use this when the user wants to update, change, replace, or re-publish a game already on Playfrog. Requires the game_id and manage_token returned by publish_game. Send the complete set of files again, not a diff. Returns the new version_id and the same play_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cover | No | Optional cover image for the game page and social share card. 1200x630 pixels, PNG/JPEG/WebP, max 3 MB, base64-encoded. Without a cover, a gameplay screenshot is captured automatically. | |
| files | Yes | ||
| genre | No | The gallery category the game is filed under (e.g. arcade, puzzle, platformer). Improves discoverability. | |
| notes | No | One line about what changed in this version. | |
| title | No | The game title players will see. | |
| game_id | Yes | From the publish_game response. | |
| controls | No | E.g. "WASD to move, space to shoot". | |
| description | No | 2 to 4 real sentences: what the game is, how to play, what makes it fun. Players read this before playing. | |
| orientation | No | Only if the game works one way; phones held wrong get a rotate overlay. | |
| manage_token | Yes | From the publish_game response (starts with pfm_). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| game_id | Yes | |
| game_url | Yes | |
| play_url | Yes | |
| claim_url | Yes | |
| expires_at | Yes | |
| version_id | Yes | |
| manage_token | Yes | |
| dropped_files | No | |
| metadata_hint | No | |
| action_required | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false. The description adds context: same play link, complete set of files (not a diff), and required credentials from publish_game. This enhances beyond structured data without 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?
Four sentences, each with a purpose: main action, use case, required credentials, file strategy, and return values. No redundancy or filler.
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 tool with 10 params, 3 required, and an output schema, the description gives a compact overview of the operation's lifecycle: update flow, credentials, file handling, and output. It doesn't enumerate each field (not needed given schema coverage), and it addresses the key nuance that files must be complete rather than a diff.
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 90%, so the schema does most of the heavy lifting. The description adds 'Send the complete set of files again, not a diff' which clarifies the files parameter, and identifies game_id/manage_token as coming from publish_game. This extra guidance justifies a 4 over baseline 3.
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 opens with 'Publish a new version of an existing Playfrog game at the same play link' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It lists synonyms (update/change/replace/re-publish) and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling publish_game by focusing on existing games.
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?
Says explicitly 'Use this when the user wants to update, change, replace, or re-publish a game already on Playfrog.' It also mentions game_id and manage_token are returned by publish_game, implying publish_game is the alternative for new games. This provides clear when-to-use context.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
