Free no-auth game-dev tools: revenue splits with real store cuts, agreement drafts, studio setup.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool serves a clear, distinct function: modeling revenue splits, drafting agreements, explaining the product, citing platform cuts, and generating setup links. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (calculate_, draft_, explain_, get_, prepare_), all lowercase with underscores. The convention is uniform and predictable.
With five tools, the server is well-scoped for a public-facing product API. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the user journey without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The domain—helping users understand and act on RoyalTea revenue sharing—is fully covered: explanation, platform data, revenue modeling, agreement drafting, and one-click setup. There are no obvious missing operations for a public pre-account toolset.
Model 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.
Generate 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 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.
The 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.
Turn 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 | |
| contactEmail | No | Email of the person who will own the studio (the producer). When given, RoyalTea emails them the setup link directly so it isn't lost in a chat transcript. | |
| 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 are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool creates a studio, project, and collaborators as placeholders, and returns a URL. It also mentions that if contactEmail is provided, RoyalTea emails the link directly. This is transparent about the creation side effect and the email behavior, though it does not cover edge cases like error handling or link expiry.
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, with the primary action and outcome front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: the one-click aspect, the target audience (non-account holder), the return type (URL), and the creation behavior. 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?
With no output schema, the description explicitly states the return type ('Returns a URL'), which is essential. It also covers the core flow: design a plan, generate a link, and the link triggers creation upon signup. Minor gaps like what happens when contactEmail is not provided (link presumably returned in chat) are not addressed, but they are not critical for successful invocation. Overall, the description is complete for a tool with moderate complexity.
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%, meaning each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds context by explaining that collaborators are added as placeholders and that splitNote is a summary of terms, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Turn a plan into a ONE-CLICK setup link') and a clear resource (a RoyalTea setup URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_revenue_split and draft_revenue_agreement by focusing on the act of creating a studio through a link. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 usage context: 'Use after you've helped someone design a revenue-share setup and they want it real.' This tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
prepare_studio_setup1 field changedInput schema / properties / contactEmailAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Email of the person who will own the studio (the producer). When given, RoyalTea emails them the setup link directly so it isn't lost in a chat transcript.",
+ "type": "string"
+}calculate_revenue_splitdraft_revenue_agreementexplain_royalteaget_platform_cutsprepare_studio_setupDiscover AI tools for game development — 100+ tools indexed by engine, task, and pricing.
Manage your RoyalTea game studio: tasks, milestones, team, and royalty data. 77 tools, OAuth 2.1.
Publish HTML5 browser games from your AI assistant — upload, release, stats. You keep the rights.
Search 438 game outsourcing studios by service, country, engine and platform. No API key.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
