Glitch MCP

Official

by Glitch-Gaming-Platform

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Answer Guidance

glitch_answer_guidance

Destructive

Answer Glitch Agent guidance requests to resume server-side workflows for game marketing tasks.

Instructions

Answer a Glitch Agent guidance request and resume the server-side workflow when possible.

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": {
      "guidance_id": "<guidance_id>",
      "answer": "<answer>"
    },
    "name": "glitch_answer_guidance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title_id`	No	Glitch game title id. Omit only after calling glitch_select_title or setting GLITCH_TITLE_ID.
`guidance_id`	Yes	Glitch guidance request id.
`answer`	Yes
`payload`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it resumes the workflow 'when possible' but does not disclose conditions for failure or side effects, offering limited context beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one clear sentence with no redundant information, making it concise and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain answer format, payload purpose, or what happens after answering, leaving significant gaps.

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% (descriptions for title_id and guidance_id but not answer and payload). The tool description adds no parameter meaning, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool answers a Glitch Agent guidance request and resumes the server-side workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like glitch_approve_action and glitch_reject_action which handle actions.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to answer versus reject or approve. It only implies usage by describing the action.

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