royaltea-public
Server Details
Free no-auth game-dev tools: revenue splits with real store cuts, agreement drafts, studio setup.
- 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 4.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: calculating splits, drafting agreements, explaining RoyalTea, retrieving platform cuts, and preparing studio setup. No two tools overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., calculate_revenue_split, draft_revenue_agreement), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 5 tools, the set is concise yet covers the core user journey: understanding the service, getting platform data, simulating splits, drafting agreements, and setting up a studio. No excess or deficiency.
The tools cover the primary tasks for new users, but there is no tool for managing existing agreements (e.g., updating or viewing past splits), which may require external action via the RoyalTea platform.
Available Tools
5 toolscalculate_revenue_splitCalculate Revenue SplitARead-onlyInspect
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). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, as it describes a calculation with no side effects. It adds value by stating 'No account needed', clarifying authentication expectations. No mention of error handling or edge cases, but annotations already cover the safety profile.
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 structured with a front-loaded summary and detailed explanation. While the first sentence is long and includes many clauses, every sentence contributes valuable information. It could be slightly more concise, but it is clear and effective.
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, nested objects), the description provides a good overview but lacks details about the return format or output shape (no output schema). It explains the process but does not cover default values or optional parameter behavior in the description, leaving some completeness 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the overall flow and how parameters like 'platform' and 'contributors' fit into the calculation, but does not provide significant additional detail beyond what the schema already offers.
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: to model the real take-home from a game/app sale by applying platform cuts, optional royalties, and splitting the pool by contribution. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'draft_revenue_agreement' by focusing on calculation rather than legal 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 tells when to use the tool ('the accurate way to answer if we make $X on <platform>, what does each person actually take home') and notes no account is needed. It implies usage context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, leaving some ambiguity.
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 AgreementARead-onlyInspect
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) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it returns a TEMPLATE (read operation). It further discloses behavioral traits: generates a draft, not an executed contract, and advises offering a link for finalization. No contradiction.
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 (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it does, what it returns, and next steps. No 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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (template) and next-step guidance. It addresses the complexity of 9 parameters implicitly. Minor gap: mutual exclusivity of revenueTiers and contributorSharePercent is left to the schema.
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 high (89%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into schedules (e.g., 'services/Schedule A') and indicating the structure, though it does not detail each parameter 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?
The description starts with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('plain-English revenue-share agreement DRAFT'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'calculate_revenue_split' or 'explain_royaltea'.
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 usage pattern ('Use for...draft a rev-share agreement...') and clarifies what the tool does not do (not legal advice, not executed contract). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_royalteaExplain RoyalteaARead-onlyInspect
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 | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it provides an explanation, with no side effects or 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, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no wasted 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?
For a simple explanation tool with no parameters and read-only behavior, the description is complete enough. No output schema exists but the tool's output is self-evident (an explanation).
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?
The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline 4 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 purpose: explaining what RoyalTea is and how it helps creative teams. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., calculate_revenue_split, draft_revenue_agreement) which are actionable, not explanatory.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use when someone asks what RoyalTea is or whether it fits their situation,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.
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 CutsARead-onlyInspect
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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it models exact tiers, thresholds, and royalty, beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.
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 with no extraneous information. Every word 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?
Given one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, platforms, and usage. 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 coverage is 100% and the description repeats that the platform parameter is optional and omitting gives all. No additional meaning added beyond the schema's own description.
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 platform revenue cuts with exact tiers, thresholds, and UE royalty, listing specific platforms. It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_revenue_split' which focuses on splits.
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 to explain or cite what a given platform takes.' It provides clear context for usage but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.
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 SetupAInspect
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 | |
| collaborators | No | The people on the project (added as placeholders they can later claim). `points` is their relative revenue weight. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: the tool returns a URL that triggers creation upon sign-up, collaborators are placeholders, and it's not destructive or read-only. This adds context beyond the 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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds essential information without 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 simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains the flow: input to URL, and what happens when the URL is used. No gaps remain.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
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: generating a one-click setup link from a plan. It uses a specific verb ('turn into') and resource ('setup link'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on creating a sign-up URL.
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 specifies when to use: after designing a revenue-share setup when someone wants it real. It implies the context (for non-account holders) and does not mention alternatives, but the siblings are clearly different.
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!