publish

Publish a game to Playfrog

publish_game

Destructive

Publish 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, 2.5 MB of files in total. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: no account or API key required, a 2.5 MB total file limit, required top-level index.html, the 7-day claim requirement or disablement, and the iframe embedding/16:9 layout caveat. This gives the agent practical expectations about the call's side effects and constraints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and selection guidance, then flows into constraints, return values, sibling routing, and build-time advice. It is long but every sentence carries distinct, useful information; the final clarification that the framing advice is not a publishing requirement prevents over-caution without adding fluff.

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?

For a publish tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: input requirements, size limits, output fields, post-publish ownership behavior, and the update path. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by surfacing aggregate constraints not in the schema, such as the 2.5 MB total file size limit and the practical impacts of the optional cover image, while the schema already documents the individual parameters well.

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 description states a precise verb and resource: 'Publish a browser game (HTML5/JavaScript, static files) to Playfrog and get a public, shareable play link.' It also explicitly names the sibling, update_game, as the way to publish later versions, so the tool is clearly differentiated from it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It says directly, 'This is the tool to use whenever someone wants to publish, share, post, put online, put on the internet, or host a browser game,' giving a strong selection signal. It also routes update scenarios to update_game with the needed game_id and manage_token, naming the alternative and the condition for using it.

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

All publish tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

publish_game and update_game have clearly distinct purposes: creating a new game vs. replacing an existing one. The update tool explicitly depends on identifiers returned by publish_game, so there is no realistic chance of selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: publish_game and update_game. Naming is consistent, predictable, and clearly communicates each tool's action and target.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server is at the low end of the acceptable range and feels somewhat thin for a publishing service. Each tool does earn its place, but the set is small enough that it lacks the breadth expected of a full-featured publishing workflow.

Completeness3/5

The pair covers initial publish and version updates, but there is no delete/unpublish or status/inspection tool, leaving a dead end for users who need to manage or remove a game. The required claim flow is also left to an external URL rather than represented as a tool, making the lifecycle incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?