GameFork MCP
Server Details
Publish, fork, improve browser games. No-auth reads; OAuth to post. Wheel: verified ops knowledge.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- TakayukiKomada/gamefork-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_game retrieves metadata, get_game_code retrieves the game's code, and search_games discovers games. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_game, get_game_code, search_games), making the set predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the server covers the basic read operations for discovering and viewing games, but lacks any mutation or user-specific tools. The count is on the lower end but still reasonable for a focused read-only API.
The tool set covers the core public game operations (metadata retrieval, code retrieval, search). Minor gaps include the absence of tools for user authentication or game creation, but those may be intentionally omitted as they require OAuth.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_gameGet game metadataARead-onlyInspect
Get metadata of a public game (title / fork lineage / counts / genres / verification status). No authentication required. 公開ゲームのメタデータ (タイトル/フォーク系譜/カウント/ジャンル/検証状態) を取得。認証不要。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game_id | Yes | Game UUID (from search_games results). ゲームの UUID (search_games の結果から取得)。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and that the tool accesses public games only. However, it omits details about error states, rate limits, or caching, which would improve transparency.
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 two sentences long, bilingual, and front-loaded with key information. Every part is useful with no redundancy.
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 the simplicity (1 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return fields and constraints. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning error behaviors, but it meets the needs of a straightforward metadata retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, with game_id fully documented (format UUID, source from search_games). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Get metadata of a public game' and lists specific fields (title, fork lineage, counts, genres, verification status), making the purpose explicit and differentiating it from siblings like get_game_code or search_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?
The description notes 'No authentication required' and provides context that it fetches metadata for public games. It does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling names suggest natural boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_game_codeGet game codeARead-onlyInspect
Get the code of a public game (HTML/JS string or TIC-80 base64) plus format info. No authentication required. Fork/publish requires OAuth (see server instructions). 公開ゲームのコード本体 (HTML/JS 文字列または TIC-80 base64) とフォーマット情報を取得。認証不要。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game_id | Yes | Game UUID (from search_games results). ゲームの UUID (search_games の結果から取得)。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no authentication needed and notes that fork/publish actions require OAuth. However, it does not specify behavior for invalid game IDs or non-public games, nor does it detail the response structure beyond 'code plus format info'.
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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes both English and Japanese, which adds length but is justified for an international tool. Every sentence contributes value, though the bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the retrieval of game code and format info. It also notes authentication requirements, making it complete enough for most use cases. However, it could mention error handling or output structure explicitly.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single required parameter (game_id) already described with UUID format and bilingual explanation. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves the code of a public game (HTML/JS string or TIC-80 base64) along with format info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_game (likely metadata) and search_games by focusing on code retrieval.
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 explicitly states 'No authentication required' and mentions that fork/publish requires OAuth. This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate (reading public code) vs when additional auth steps are needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_game or search_games.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_gamesSearch GameFork gamesARead-onlyInspect
Search public games on GameFork by title and/or hashtag (omit both for the latest games). This searches games, not the Wheel knowledge base (use search_wheel for that). Returns JSON; clients supporting the Apps SDK (e.g. ChatGPT) render it as a card grid widget. 公開ゲームをタイトル / ハッシュタグで検索 (両方省略で新着)。Wheel (設計判断・失敗知識) の検索は search_wheel。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Title substring to search for. タイトル部分一致の検索語。 | |
| tag | No | Exact hashtag to filter by. 完全一致で絞り込むハッシュタグ。 | |
| limit | No | Max number of results (default 12). 最大件数 (既定 12)。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| games | Yes | |
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON and that clients with the Apps SDK render it as a card grid, which adds transparency. It could mention rate limits or auth, but given it's a search tool, this is adequate.
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 with bilingual text. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loads the purpose and key usage guidance.
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 the tool has only 3 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, output format, and boundaries. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the combined use of q and tag, and the behavior when both are omitted. The Japanese translations provide additional clarity.
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 clearly states it searches public games by title and/or hashtag, with a note about omitting both for latest games. It distinguishes from search_wheel, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 (searching games) and when not (use search_wheel for Wheel knowledge base). Also advises omitting parameters for latest games. While sibling tools get_game and get_game_code are not mentioned, the context is sufficient.
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!