Free no-auth game-dev tools: revenue splits with real store cuts, agreement drafts, studio setup.
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: revenue calculation, agreement drafting, platform info, explanation, and setup. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: calculate_revenue_split, draft_revenue_agreement, explain_royaltea, get_platform_cuts, prepare_studio_setup.
5 tools is well-scoped for a revenue-sharing domain, covering key actions without bloat or deficiency.
The set covers end-to-end needs for modeling splits, drafting agreements, providing platform data, explaining the service, and setting up a studio. No obvious gaps.
calculate_revenue_splitCalculate Revenue SplitAModel real take-home from a game/app sale, end to end: apply the storefront/platform cut (Steam tiers, Epic 0%-then-12%, Epic First Run, Apple/Google small-business rates, console, itch) and optional Unreal royalty, publisher cut, and expenses — THEN split the remaining contributor pool fairly by each person's relative contribution. This is the accurate way to answer 'if we make $X on , what does each person actually take home'. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revenue | Yes | Gross revenue / player spend to model (e.g. 50000) | |
| expenses | No | Optional costs to subtract before the contributor pool (marketing, tools, etc.) | |
| platform | No | Storefront the revenue comes from. Omit if the money is already net of platform fees. | |
| contributors | Yes | The people sharing the contributor pool. `points` is a relative weight (bigger = larger share); if you only know rough effort, use 1-10. | |
| publisherCut | No | Optional % a publisher takes off the top after platform fees (0-100) | |
| unrealEngine | No | Game built on Unreal Engine? Applies the 5% royalty on gross above $1M lifetime (waived on Epic). | |
| lifetimeGross | No | Lifetime gross so far (for the Unreal $1M royalty threshold). Default 0. | |
| poolPercentage | No | % of net revenue that goes to the contributor pool vs staying with the studio (default 100) | |
| lifetimeRevenue | No | Revenue already earned on this platform in the tiering period (drives Steam $10M/$50M tiers and Epic/Apple/Google $1M thresholds). Default 0. | |
| platformCutOverride | No | For itch/direct: the storefront cut fraction 0-1 (e.g. 0.05). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict. It adds useful context like 'No account needed' and 'end to end' processing, but does not elaborate on rate limits or data persistence.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds essential context. No unnecessary words.
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 (10 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the end-to-end flow and the role of key parameters. It lacks explicit mention of return format (e.g., per-contributor amounts), but the overall process is well-covered.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining domain terms (e.g., Steam tiers, Epic First Run) that clarify platform enum choices, and gives a holistic overview of how parameters combine (platform cut, royalty, publisher cut, expenses, then split).
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 models real take-home from a game/app sale end-to-end, specifying the action (calculate) and resource (revenue split). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's the 'accurate way' to answer per-person take-home.
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 provides clear context (modeling take-home for a given platform), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The purpose is well-defined, so the omission of explicit exclusions is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
draft_revenue_agreementDraft Revenue AgreementAGenerate a plain-English revenue-share agreement DRAFT between a company/studio and a contributor, using RoyalTea's agreement structure (parties, services/Schedule A, revenue-share terms/Schedule B, standard clauses, signature blocks). Returns a clearly-labeled TEMPLATE — not legal advice and not an executed contract. Offer the person the getStarted link to finalize and e-sign it for real in RoyalTea. Use for 'draft a rev-share agreement for X to do Y for Z% of revenue'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| services | No | What the contributor will do (Schedule A — e.g. "gameplay programming and tools") | |
| companyName | Yes | The studio/company granting the revenue share | |
| projectName | Yes | The project/game the agreement covers | |
| companyState | No | Governing-law state/jurisdiction (e.g. "Delaware") | |
| revenueTiers | No | Tiered revenue share (Schedule B): different % across revenue bands. | |
| effectiveDate | No | e.g. 2026-08-01; defaults to a placeholder | |
| contributorName | Yes | The person (or company) receiving the revenue share | |
| contributorIsCompany | No | ||
| contributorSharePercent | No | The contributor's flat % of revenue (use this OR revenueTiers) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns a 'TEMPLATE — not legal advice and not an executed contract,' reinforcing the safe, read-only behavior. It does not contradict 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?
The description is compact yet packed with essential information: purpose, structure, output type, and next steps. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.
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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (template) and practical next steps (getStarted link). Additional details on parameter interactions would improve completeness.
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 89%, and the description adds value by explaining the agreement structure (Schedule A, Schedule B) and noting that 'revenueTiers' OR 'contributorSharePercent' should be used, which is not obvious from the schema alone.
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 'generates a plain-English revenue-share agreement DRAFT' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (calculate_revenue_split, explain_royaltea, etc.) by focusing on drafting agreements.
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?
Provides an explicit use-case pattern: 'draft a rev-share agreement for X to do Y for Z% of revenue.' While it doesn't list when not to use or name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_royalteaExplain RoyalteaAExplain what RoyalTea is and how it helps creative teams track contributions and split revenue fairly. Use when someone asks what RoyalTea is or whether it fits their situation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, stating the tool 'explains'. It adds context about what is explained (what RoyalTea is and how it helps), which goes beyond the annotation. 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 short sentences that clearly state purpose and usage. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does and when to invoke it.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.
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 verb 'Explain' and the resource 'RoyalTea', along with its purpose: helping creative teams track contributions and split revenue. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are action-oriented (calculate, draft, get, prepare).
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 says 'Use when someone asks what RoyalTea is or whether it fits their situation', providing clear context. It could be improved by mentioning when not to use (e.g., for specific calculations), but overall it's adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_platform_cutsGet Platform CutsAThe current storefront/platform revenue cuts RoyalTea models — Steam, Epic Games Store (+ First Run), Apple, Google Play, console, itch.io — with exact tiers, thresholds, and the Unreal Engine royalty. Use to explain or cite what a given platform takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | No | Optional: one platform; omit for all. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the output includes tiers, thresholds, and royalty. No contradictions. Suggests safe read 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?
Two sentences that are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, what platforms it covers, and when to use it.
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 the single parameter having an enum and description. The description adds context about the tool's purpose and what it provides for each platform, enhancing beyond 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?
The description specifies the tool retrieves platform revenue cuts with exact tiers, thresholds, and Unreal Engine royalty, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like calculate_revenue_split or draft_revenue_agreement.
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 'Use to explain or cite what a given platform takes,' providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools fills this gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
prepare_studio_setupPrepare Studio SetupAInspectTurn a plan (studio name, project, collaborators, intended split) into a ONE-CLICK setup link for someone who doesn't have a RoyalTea account yet. Returns a URL — when they open it and sign up, RoyalTea creates the studio + project + collaborators (as placeholders) exactly as planned. Use after you've helped someone design a revenue-share setup and they want it real.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| splitNote | No | Optional human summary of the intended split/terms | |
| studioName | Yes | Name for the new studio/workspace | |
| projectName | No | Optional first project name | |
| collaborators | No | The people on the project (added as placeholders they can later claim). `points` is their relative revenue weight. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context: it returns a URL that triggers creation upon signup, and it targets users without an account. It does not detail all side effects (e.g., reversibility, limits), but the deferred creation behavior is well described.
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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence explains the core function, second specifies the return value and behavior, third gives usage timing. No fluff.
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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the input, output (URL), and usage timing. It is missing details on error cases (e.g., duplicate studio name, expired link) and the exact format of the returned URL. However, the deferred nature is well captured, and the context signals provide additional structure. Overall adequate.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions key parameters (studio name, project, collaborators, split) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. The term 'intended split' hints at splitNote, but no additional formatting or constraints are 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting a plan (studio name, project, collaborators, split) into a one-click setup link for new users. It specifies the returned resource (URL) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on setup creation rather than revenue calculation or agreement drafting.
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 says 'Use after you've helped someone design a revenue-share setup and they want it real,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools and context help fill the gap.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
