get_gameGet full metadata for a single game by its TheGamesDB id, including the front boxart image URL. Example: get_game({ id: 108139 })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | TheGamesDB game id, e.g. 108139 | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional TheGamesDB API key. Omit to use the shared Pipeworx platform key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 108139
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "108139"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, providing safety profile. Description adds that the response includes a front boxart image URL, exceeding annotation coverage. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence plus a clear example. No unnecessary words or redundant information.
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?
No output schema, so description bears responsibility for return value clarity. 'Full metadata' is vague; only the image URL is specified. Missing details on error handling, rate limits, or optional API key behavior. Adequate but incomplete for a simple read 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 has 100% coverage for both parameters. Description includes an example and mentions the id parameter but does not add meaning beyond schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves full metadata for a single game using its TheGamesDB id, and specifies inclusion of the front boxart image URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_games which likely return multiple 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?
Usage is implied: use when you have a specific game id. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided. The example clarifies input but lacks contextual guidance.
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.