Fetch Steam store featured capsules for a region, including per-platform lists, spotlight capsules, discounts, and prices.
Get the Steam store featured capsules. Returns the storefront's featured capsules for a region (per-platform featured lists plus large spotlight capsules), including discount and price fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| l | No | Language code | |
| cc | No | Store country code (ISO, selects currency) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (featured lists, spotlight capsules, discount and price fields), which implies a safe read, but it says nothing about defaults when l/cc are omitted, caching, or rate limits that would matter to an agent calling it repeatedly.
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, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the detail about return contents. Every clause 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?
For a two-parameter, zero-annotation read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return contents. It falls just short of complete by not stating what happens with omitted l/cc or how large the result set is.
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 both parameters are already documented. The phrase 'for a region' loosely links cc to regional results, but the description adds no format, default, or currency behavior beyond what the schema already states (ISO country code, language code).
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 opens with a specific verb + resource ('Get the Steam store featured capsules') and specifies scope ('for a region') plus the content categories returned (per-platform lists, spotlight capsules). It is clear on its own, though it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, steam_featured_categories.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the storefront-featured retrieval tool, and 'for a region' hints that cc drives localization. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as steam_top_sellers or steam_featured_categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.