Wavedash
Server Details
Wavedash docs and workflow guidance for building and publishing browser games.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: workflow, doc retrieval, checklist, quickstart, SDK reference, search, and config validation. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent wavedash_verb_noun pattern, with verbs like get_, search_, and validate_. No mixing of conventions.
Seven tools is ideal for a documentation and config validation server. Each tool earns its place without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers all essential aspects of the domain: getting started, documentation, publishing checklist, SDK reference, search, and config validation. No obvious gaps for a read-only assistant.
Available Tools
8 toolswavedash_get_agent_workflowGet Wavedash Agent WorkflowARead-onlyInspect
Return a concise end-to-end workflow for AI agents creating a browser game from scratch and preparing it for Wavedash upload. Read-only and unauthenticated; upload still happens through the Wavedash CLI or Developer Portal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | Optional engine/framework, for example javascript, phaser, unity, godot, three.js, react, or custom. | |
| features | No | Optional requested Wavedash features, for example multiplayer, achievements, leaderboards, cloud-saves, ugc, players. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about being unauthenticated and redirects upload to CLI/Portal, which is valuable beyond annotations. 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?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies key constraints. Efficient and well-structured.
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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the overall scope and target audience (AI agents), though it could briefly mention that the workflow is generic and not tied to a specific engine.
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%, so the schema documents parameters well. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters (engine, features) beyond the schema's own descriptions, placing it at baseline 3.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as an 'end-to-end workflow for AI agents creating a browser game from scratch and preparing it for Wavedash upload.' This is distinct from sibling tools like wavedash_get_doc or wavedash_get_quickstart.
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 the tool is 'Read-only and unauthenticated' and clarifies that upload happens through CLI or Portal, guiding the agent on when to use this tool vs. others. However, it does not directly compare with siblings or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wavedash_get_docGet Wavedash DocARead-onlyInspect
Fetch a full Wavedash docs page as Markdown by path or docs.wavedash.com URL. Read-only and unauthenticated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Docs path or URL, for example sdk/setup, engines/phaser, publishing/upload, or https://docs.wavedash.com/sdk/setup. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key fact that the operation is 'unauthenticated', which is not covered by annotations. It also specifies the return format (Markdown). This exceeds the annotation baseline.
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 only two sentences, both front-loaded with the most important information (action, resource, format, access constraints). No superfluous text.
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 (single parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, input format, access level, and output format. No gaps.
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% (one parameter with examples). The tool description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('full Wavedash docs page'), and the output format ('Markdown'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying that it retrieves a single doc page by path/URL, whereas siblings cover other functionalities like agent workflow or search.
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 for fetching documentation content and notes it's read-only and unauthenticated, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wavedash_search_docs or wavedash_get_quickstart. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wavedash_get_publishing_checklistGet Wavedash Publishing ChecklistARead-onlyInspect
Return Wavedash upload and publishing checklist guidance, optionally including an engine-specific docs page. Read-only and unauthenticated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | Optional engine/framework, for example unity, godot, phaser, three.js, react, rust, or custom. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the insight that the tool is unauthenticated, which is not covered by annotations. It also clarifies the output is guidance text, adding context beyond the structured fields.
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?
A single sentence under 30 words, front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.
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?
The description covers purpose, optional parameter behavior, read-only status, and lack of authentication. With an output schema present and annotations provided, no additional detail is needed for a tool of this simplicity.
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% with a clear description for the 'engine' parameter. The description's mention of 'optionally including an engine-specific docs page' reinforces the parameter's purpose and adds meaning about filtering behavior beyond the schema.
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 returns 'Wavedash upload and publishing checklist guidance' with an optional engine-specific docs page. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like wavedash_get_doc and wavedash_get_quickstart.
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?
Description mentions 'Read-only and unauthenticated,' implying safe usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide usage conditions. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wavedash_get_quickstartGet Wavedash QuickstartARead-onlyInspect
Return the Wavedash setup path for a browser game, optionally including an engine and SDK features. Read-only and unauthenticated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | Optional engine/framework, for example phaser, unity, godot, three.js, react, rust, or custom. | |
| features | No | Optional Wavedash features, for example multiplayer, achievements, leaderboards, cloud-saves, ugc, players. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that the tool is unauthenticated and returns a setup path with optional parameters. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple read tool with no required parameters, an output schema, and clear auth status, the description is complete. It covers return value, optionality, and safety.
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%, so the description adds little beyond restating that engine and features are optional. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.
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 returns the Wavedash setup path for a browser game, with optional engine and SDK features. This specific verb+resource is distinct from siblings like wavedash_get_doc or wavedash_get_agent_workflow.
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?
It explicitly states 'Read-only and unauthenticated,' which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wavedash_get_sdk_referenceGet Wavedash SDK ReferenceARead-onlyInspect
Fetch Wavedash SDK docs for a specific feature such as setup, multiplayer, achievements, leaderboards, cloud saves, UGC, players, events, or types. Read-only and unauthenticated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | SDK topic, for example setup, multiplayer, lobbies, p2p, achievements, stats, leaderboards, cloud-saves, ugc, players, cli, config. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'unauthenticated', providing extra context about access requirements (no authentication). This goes beyond the annotations, but still missing details like rate limits or response scope.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and topic list. No irrelevant information; every word earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter tool with output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, and access level (unauthenticated). No gaps remain given the structured fields.
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% (the topic parameter has a description with examples). The tool description largely repeats those examples ('setup, multiplayer, achievements...'), adding no new semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 fetches Wavedash SDK docs for specific features, listing examples like setup, multiplayer, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wavedash_get_doc (general docs) and wavedash_search_docs (search) by being SDK-specific and topic-driven.
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 for fetching SDK reference docs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wavedash_get_doc or wavedash_search_docs). No when-not or prerequisite information is provided, leaving guidance to inference from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wavedash_implementation_plannerPlan Wavedash ImplementationARead-onlyInspect
Plan a Wavedash game implementation from the user's goal, engine, and requested features. Use this before making architecture claims, selecting SDK features, or writing Wavedash integration code. Read-only and unauthenticated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | What the user wants to build or integrate, including the game type and Wavedash-related outcome. | |
| engine | No | Optional engine/framework, for example phaser, unity, godot, three.js, react, rust, or custom. | |
| features | No | Optional requested Wavedash features, for example multiplayer, achievements, leaderboards, cloud-saves, ugc, players, paid-content, upload, or publishing. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds 'Read-only and unauthenticated' beyond annotations (readOnlyHint), aligning with them and providing clear safety profile. No other behavioral traits needed given low risk.
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, no fluff. Front-loaded with action verb and resource. Every word earns its place.
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 low complexity, high schema coverage, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and why to use this 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 coverage is 100%, and description only reiterates parameter names ('goal, engine, requested features') without adding deeper meaning. Baseline 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's function: planning a Wavedash game implementation from user goal, engine, and features. It differentiates from siblings by positioning as a precursor to architecture and coding tasks.
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?
Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before making architecture claims, selecting SDK features, or writing Wavedash integration code.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wavedash_search_docsSearch Wavedash DocsARead-onlyInspect
Search official Wavedash docs for browser game development, SDK integration, engines, CLI, upload, and publishing. Read-only and unauthenticated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| query | Yes | Search query, for example: sdk setup, multiplayer lobbies, unity webgl, build push. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only' and 'unauthenticated' add some context but do not significantly expand beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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?
The description, combined with schema and annotations, provides sufficient context for a search tool. Output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return values are covered. Minor omission of pagination details, but limit parameter addresses that.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'official Wavedash docs', and specifies topics like browser game development, SDK integration, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specific docs.
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?
Description indicates it is for searching docs and notes it is read-only and unauthenticated, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool set implies when to use each.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wavedash_validate_configValidate Wavedash ConfigARead-onlyInspect
Validate pasted wavedash.toml text for basic Wavedash CLI config issues. This does not read files; provide the config text as input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toml | Yes | Contents of wavedash.toml. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it only validates provided text (not files) and checks for 'basic' issues, which provides useful context beyond annotations. 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple validation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what not to expect. It is nearly complete; lacking only explicit mention of the output format, but the output schema likely covers that.
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% with a single parameter 'toml' described as 'Contents of wavedash.toml.' The description repeats 'provide the config text as input' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 'Validate pasted wavedash.toml text for basic Wavedash CLI config issues.' It includes a specific verb (validate) and resource (wavedash.toml), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not read files.
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 explains that this tool does not read files and requires config text as input, providing clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools are all documentation retrieval, so the distinction is implied.
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!