user_gamesCreated games.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| sortOrder | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of game objects | |
| nextPageCursor | No | Cursor for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "user_id": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 25,
+ "sortOrder": "Desc",
+ "user_id": 1
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "User created games response",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of game objects",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "created": {
+ "description": "Creation date (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Game description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Game universe ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Game name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rootPlaceId": {
+ "description": "Root place ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "description": "Last updated date (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "nextPageCursor": {
+ "description": "Cursor for pagination",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds no behavioral context. It omits details about sorting, limit behavior, or authentication requirements.
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?
While extremely short (two words), the description is under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, failing to convey essential details.
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 complexity, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters influence results, or how it differs from sibling user-related tools. Output schema presence does not compensate for the lack of narrative.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description 'Created games' provides no meaning for the three parameters (limit, user_id, sortOrder). Examples in schema offer minimal context but are not part of the description.
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 'Created games' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying an action or resource scope. It does not clarify whether the tool lists, creates, or manages games, leaving purpose ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like user_badges or user_followers_count. The context of sibling tools suggests it retrieves user-specific data, but usage context is entirely implied.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Roblox and Pipeworx domains. However, the three variants of ask_pipeworx (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could cause confusion, as could deep_research vs ask_pipeworx.
Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (user_followers_count), verb_noun with underscores (ask_pipeworx), and camelCase (recall, forget). Roblox tools follow a consistent 'user_' prefix, but Pipeworx tools lack a uniform pattern.
41 tools is excessive for a server named 'Roblox'. The majority of tools are Pipeworx data utilities, which are unrelated to the server's apparent focus. This overloading undermines coherence.
Coverage within the Roblox domain is basic (user profiles, friends, games) but misses common features like asset details or group management. Pipeworx appears comprehensive for data lookups, but the overall set lacks unified domain completeness.