player_achievementsAchievements for a game.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| l | No | ||
| appid | Yes | ||
| steamid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playerstats | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context; annotations already provide readOnly and idempotent hints. It does not disclose any additional traits such as returning a list, language behavior, or what happens if no achievements exist. However, since annotations cover safety, the description's lack of extra context is somewhat mitigated, but it still fails to describe the operation.
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 a single short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks substance and does not earn its place; it is essentially a title, not a functional description.
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?
Despite the existence of an output schema and annotations, the description is completely inadequate for a tool with two required parameters. It does not explain what data is returned, how to format a call, or any prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters but only says 'Achievements for a game.' It does not define appid, steamid, or l, nor any relationship between them. Examples in schema are not part of the description text, so no parameter meaning is conveyed.
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 'Achievements for a game' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name/title without a verb or clear action. It does not specify whether it retrieves, lists, or summarizes achievements, and provides no differentiation from sibling tools like player_stats or player_bans.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention required inputs (steamid, appid) or any context like needing a specific Steam ID. The description offers no explicit or implicit usage scenarios.
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.
Many tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve meta/onboarding purposes. The Steam-specific tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large unrelated set (Polymarket, Pipeworx, npm scanning) that makes selection confusing.
Tool names follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (resolve_vanity_url, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-only (app_details, player_stats), and others use domain prefixes inconsistently (polymarket_arbitrage, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). The mix of descriptive and vague names (process, run, execute) adds to the inconsistency.
At 45 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially for a server named 'Steam' where only about a third of the tools actually relate to Steam. The rest belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other unrelated domains, making the scope unclear and the tool count far too large for a focused purpose.
For the Steam domain, the server covers a reasonable range: app details/news, player counts, friends, owned games, achievements, stats, bans, levels, and summaries. However, notable gaps exist such as store search, reviews, wishlist, or any user inventory/trading features. The non-Steam tools add breadth but do not address these missing Steam operations.