Retrieve global unlock percentages for every achievement in a Steam app, sorted by most-unlocked first; apps without global stats return an empty list.
Get global achievement completion percentages for a Steam app. Returns the global unlock percentage for each of an app's achievements, sorted most-unlocked first. Apps without global achievement stats return an empty list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid | Yes | Numeric Steam app id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the metric returned (global unlock percentage per achievement), the sort order (most-unlocked first), and the empty-result edge case for apps lacking stats. It omits auth, caching, or rate-limit context, so it is good but not exhaustive.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose, then return semantics, then the edge case, so it reads well. There is mild redundancy between 'global achievement completion percentages' and 'global unlock percentage,' but every sentence still earns its place.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must summarize returns, which it does (per-achievement unlock percentages, sorted). For a one-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete, with only auth/rate-limit context absent.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Numeric Steam app id'), so the schema already documents it. The description's 'for a Steam app' adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get global achievement completion percentages for a Steam app.' An agent can distinguish it from steam_app, steam_reviews, and similar siblings from the resource alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, keeping it just below a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned relative to siblings like steam_app or steam_steamspy. The empty-list note is a behavioral fact, not routing guidance. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.