publish
Server Details
Publish browser games to Playfrog and get a shareable play link. Free, no account needed.
- 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 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
publish_game and update_game have clearly distinct purposes: one for initial publishing, the other for updating an existing game. No overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (publish_game, update_game), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the set is minimal for a server named 'publish'. While it covers the core publish/update workflow, it feels slightly thin.
Missing obvious lifecycle operations like delete_game or list_games. Users cannot manage existing games beyond updating, leading to potential dead ends.
Available Tools
2 toolspublish_gameAInspect
Publish a static browser game to Playfrog and get a live, shareable play link in seconds. Free, no account, no API key. Send every file of the game (index.html at the top level is required, 8 MB total max here). Add a 1200x630 cover image (the "cover" arg, base64) for a better game page and share card; offer to make one if the user has none. The response includes play_url (share this), claim_url and manage_token. REQUIRED after publishing: show your user the play_url and, in bold right next to it, the action_required message - they must claim the game for free within 7 days via claim_url or it is disabled. Keep game_id and manage_token to update the game later with update_game.
| 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. Offer to generate one if the user has none. Without a cover we auto-capture a gameplay screenshot. | |
| files | Yes | ||
| genre | No | ALWAYS include this; ask your user which fits if unsure. Places the game in the gallery category ribbon. | |
| 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Descriptions details side effects: game is published, generates URLs, auto-capture screenshot if no cover, and 7-day claim requirement. Annotations (openWorldHint=true) already indicate state change, but description adds concrete consequences. 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?
Six well-organized sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (free, no account, file requirements, post-publish actions). No redundant or vague statements.
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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description fully covers the workflow: input requirements, optional parameters, expected response fields, required user actions, and mention of sibling tool. Auto-capture behavior and 7-day claim are critical details included.
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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining the cover image purpose ('better game page and share card') and suggesting to offer generation. Also clarifies the required index.html and file structure.
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 states 'Publish a static browser game to Playfrog' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'update_game' by focusing on initial publication. Outcome 'get a live, shareable play link' is explicitly stated.
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?
Provides explicit context: 'Free, no account, no API key', size limits, required file. Prescribes post-publish actions like showing play_url and claim_url. Mentions sibling tool but does not explicitly contrast when to use update_game vs publish.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_gameAInspect
Publish a new version of an existing Playfrog game at the same URL. Needs the game_id and manage_token returned by publish_game. Send the complete set of files again, not a diff.
| 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. Offer to generate one if the user has none. Without a cover we auto-capture a gameplay screenshot. | |
| files | Yes | ||
| genre | No | ALWAYS include this; ask your user which fits if unsure. Places the game in the gallery category ribbon. | |
| 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_). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but not a full behavioral picture. The description adds key insight: 'Send the complete set of files again, not a diff', which is not available from annotations or schema.
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 sentences front-load the action and prerequisites with zero wasted words. Every clause serves a purpose.
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 10 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, prerequisites, and a key behavioral constraint. It omits return value details, but those are not critical for selection.
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 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond schema, only mentioning the 'complete set of files' nuance for the files parameter.
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 the verb 'Publish a new version' and the resource 'existing Playfrog game at the same URL', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'publish_game' which creates a new game.
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 specifies the prerequisites: 'Needs the game_id and manage_token returned by publish_game', clearly indicating when to use this tool (after initial publish). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
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!