Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gameball MCP Server

Gameball MCP Server

by Ahmedelmonady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sendEvents

Create events for a customer using their ID and event mappings, enabling tracking of interactions and behaviors.

Instructions

Create event

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>",
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "sendEvents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsYesA mapping of event names
customerIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only implies mutation via 'create'. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, whether multiple events are processed atomically, or any rate limits. The description adds no value beyond the verb itself.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential context and does not earn its place, providing no more information than the tool name itself.

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 a nested events object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to describe return values, error conditions, expected input formats, or how to use the tool effectively. The tool is part of a large sibling set, making this especially insufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'events' has a brief description). The description does not clarify that customerId is required or what the events mapping should look like. No parameter examples or format hints are provided, so the gap in schema coverage is not compensated.

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 'Create event' is essentially a tautology of the name 'sendEvents' and does not specify that it sends events for a customer or that it accepts multiple events. It also uses the verb 'create' while the tool name says 'send', creating ambiguity. No distinction from sibling tools like trackOrder is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., customer existence) or scenarios in which this tool is appropriate. The description offers no context for selection.

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