Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gameball MCP Server

Gameball MCP Server

by Ahmedelmonady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

getCustomerHash

Retrieve a customer's unique hash using their customer ID, enabling authenticated interactions with Gameball services.

Instructions

🔒 Get hash

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>"
    },
    "name": "getCustomerHash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customerIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data sensitivity, return format, errors, or side effects. The lock emoji hints at security but is not a substantive behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but under-specifies the tool's function. Conciseness is only valuable when it preserves essential information; here, key semantics are missing.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description still fails to clarify what the hash is, how it is computed, or what the caller should expect. The tool is effectively opaque to an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention customerId or explain its meaning. With only one parameter, the description should at least clarify that the hash corresponds to the given customer ID, but it does not.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description '🔒 Get hash' only restates the tool name without specifying whose hash or what kind of hash is returned. It lacks the resource clarity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like getCustomer or getCustomerDetails.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives such as getCustomer, getCustomerDetails, or other customer-related tools. The description provides no use-case context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools