Skip to main content
Glama

klyo games: publish HTML5 browser games

by pl.klyo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Take your game off the portal

klyo_delete_game
Destructive

Take this account's game (slug) off the portal. The first call removes it from the catalogue and takes its page down; the address stays yours and you can upload the game there again. A second call on a game that is already taken down removes it from your list for good. Scores and reviews stay attached to the address and are never handed to another game. Use it to clean up after a failed attempt, for example when two entries of the same game ended up in the waiting room. A package that never became a game (only upload_id in the waiting room, from klyo_upload_package or klyo_my_games) is deleted with upload_id instead of slug: its file and preview are removed for good.

Examples: • Delete my game neon-coil-arena • Remove the failed entry from the waiting room • Delete the older copy of the same game

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoGame address in the catalogue, for example lantern-thief (from klyo_my_games).
upload_idNoPackage in the waiting room that never became a game (from klyo_upload_package or klyo_my_games → paczki).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / upload_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Package in the waiting room that never became a game (from klyo_upload_package or klyo_my_games → paczki).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "slug"
-]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Previous value: -"Adres gry w katalogu, np. lantern-thief (z klyo_my_games)."New value: +"Game address in the catalogue, for example lantern-thief (from klyo_my_games)."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the first call removes from catalogue and takes the page down while keeping the address, a second call removes it for good, and scores/reviews remain tied to the address. It also explains the non-game package path via `upload_id`, which is beyond what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a well-structured paragraph with examples, front-loaded with the primary action. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence contributes meaning—covering the two-step process, data persistence, and parameter selection. The examples at the end aid comprehension without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what happens on first and second calls, what data persists, and how to handle packages. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that `slug` and `upload_id` are mutually exclusive or that at least one is required, though the description strongly implies it. Overall, it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), but the tool description goes further by explaining the provenance of each parameter (e.g., `slug` from klyo_my_games, `upload_id` from klyo_upload_package) and the conditions under which each is used. This adds contextual value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: 'Take this account's game (`slug`) off the portal.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like klyo_update_game or klyo_publish_game by focusing on removal. The two-step deletion process is explained, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to clean up after a failed attempt, for example when two entries of the same game ended up in the waiting room.' It also clarifies when to use `slug` vs `upload_id` and notes that a second call on an already-down game permanently removes it. Examples illustrate common scenarios, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All klyo games: publish HTML5 browser games toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources