list_storesView all tracked game retailers (e.g., Steam, Epic Games, GOG). Returns store names and IDs for filtering deals by specific stores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Number of active stores | |
| stores | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "stores": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "icon": {
+ "description": "Store icon image URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Store name (e.g., Steam, Epic Games)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "store_id": {
+ "description": "Unique store identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "store_id",
+ "name",
+ "icon"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Number of active stores",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "total",
+ "stores"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond this: it identifies the scope ('tracked' retailers) and the return payload (store names and IDs). This is appropriate given the low bar for annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded with the action ('View all tracked game retailers'), and every word adds value—including examples and the return/usage explanation. 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and why to use it. The output schema handles return structure details, so no further elaboration is needed.
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 tool has 0 parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters since none exist.
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's function: 'View all tracked game retailers' with examples (Steam, Epic Games, GOG). It also specifies the return value (store names and IDs) and its use case (filtering deals), distinguishing it from game- or deal-related sibling tools.
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 implies usage context: 'for filtering deals by specific stores' tells the agent when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool lists stores, so it is implicitly the correct choice for retrieving store IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.