steam-local-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Steam interaction: client status, game finding, download/install states, library queries, store search, and page opening. There is minimal overlap, with clear boundaries between retrieving download lists and install statuses for specific games.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools start with 'steam_' and follow a descriptive pattern, but 'steam_client_status' uses a noun phrase while others use verb_noun (e.g., steam_find_game, steam_get_download_status). This minor inconsistency in verb usage prevents a perfect score.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set covers essential operations for a local Steam assistant without being bloated. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain of monitoring and interacting with a local Steam installation.
Completeness3/5
Querying local state is well-covered, but there are notable gaps in active operations: no tool to install, launch, or update games. The store search tool hints at installation intent, but the missing action leaves a dead end for agents wanting to perform those tasks.
Average 3.7/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds that it requires specific environment variables and uses the optional Steam Web API, providing useful context. However, it does not disclose filtering behavior or effects of missing keys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and following with prerequisites. No wasted words, but could include more structure for a tool with multiple parameters.
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?
Given 6 parameters (all optional, unfiltered in description) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return format, filtering logic, and error handling, making it incomplete for effective usage.
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?
Schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter explanations. The description does not compensate for the lacking schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' and resource 'the user's complete Steam library, playtime, and last-played data' clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like steam_client_status and steam_find_game, though 'complete' slightly conflicts with filtering parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions required keys (STEAM_API_KEY, STEAM_ID) and web API nature, providing context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it (e.g., if no API key), limiting guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about including total playtime, which is useful. However, it does not disclose edge cases like empty results, error handling, or rate limits. For a read-only tool with annotations, the behavior is adequately but minimally transparent.
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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core functionality and the second noting prerequisites. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.
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?
Given zero schema documentation for parameters, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination (limit/offset), return structure, or behavior when no games are recent. The tool's complexity is low but the gaps are critical for correct usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the two parameters ('limit' and 'offset'). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The agent has no guidance on how to paginate or cap results.
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 'Get games Steam reports as recently played, including total playtime.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'recently played Steam games' are specific. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'steam_get_library' which lists all games, and 'steam_find_game' which searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions required environment variables (STEAM_API_KEY and STEAM_ID), implying prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'steam_get_library' for all games or 'steam_search_store' for store searches. Usage context is implied by 'recently played' but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it opens a page in the local Steam library, but does not disclose prerequisites like Steam running or behavior if game is not installed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is concise but could be slightly more structured by adding a note on the parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete but lacks details on what the query parameter means and prerequisites (e.g., Steam must be running).
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 coverage is 0% with one parameter 'query' having no description. The tool description does not explain what 'query' means (e.g., game name), forcing the agent to infer its meaning.
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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'an installed game's page in the local Steam library', distinguishing it from siblings like steam_search_store or steam_get_library.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for opening a game page, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for non-installed games.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the basic function (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity, behavior on not found). With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lacks details on return format (e.g., list of games or single result), error handling, or matching behavior. A more complete description would clarify output and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description's parameter description ('Installed game name or numeric Steam app ID.') duplicates the schema description, adding no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 action ('Find'), the resource ('locally installed Steam games'), and the search criteria ('by name or app ID'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like steam_get_library (list all) and steam_search_store (online store).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching by name or app ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like steam_get_library or steam_get_game_install_status. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context about reporting installation details and running status, but no additional behavioral traits beyond that.
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?
One efficient sentence that covers the tool's purpose. Front-loaded and free of extra text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no params and no output schema, the description sufficiently states what it reports: installation info, how found, and running status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters defined, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info because there are none.
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?
Description clearly states the tool reports Steam installation info and client running status, distinguishing it from other Steam tools like finding games or library.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that search result names and metadata are untrusted external Store data—a key behavioral trait beyond read-only. No contradictions with 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?
Two efficient sentences: first sets purpose and context, second adds a critical caution. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details about the output format (e.g., structure of results), pagination, or error cases. Given no output schema and four parameters, the description is somewhat incomplete, though the usage context helps.
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 coverage is 0% with 4 parameters. The description only indirectly covers the 'query' parameter ('by game name'), and provides no explanation for 'limit', 'language', or 'country_code'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 verb 'Search', the resource 'public Steam Store', and the purpose 'to find app IDs'. It also provides workflow context ('before opening a store page or asking Steam to install a game') and warns about untrusted data, making the tool's intent unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before opening a store page or installing a game, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it differs from siblings like 'steam_find_game'. Guidance is present but partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context about network behavior and non-destructive nature, confirming no server contact or file changes. This exceeds annotation information.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and description lacks details on return structure or data format (e.g., what fields like 'pending update' look like). Adequate for a simple read tool but could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including max/min lengths. Description adds no further semantic value beyond restating what schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'report' and resource 'local Steam manifest status for matching games', including specific details like pending update and download progress. Distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not contact servers or change files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for local read-only checks via 'does not contact Steam servers or change game files', but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to siblings like steam_get_download_status or steam_get_library.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. Description adds specifics about returned data (counts, sizes, space). However, it does not disclose potential performance implications or what 'summarize' entails (list vs aggregate).
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, no filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read-only tool, the description fully captures what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema needed given the explicit list of data points.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description compensates by clearly stating the tool's scope and output, avoiding any ambiguity about inputs.
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 uses specific verb 'Summarize', identifies resource 'local Steam library', and lists exact data points (installed-game count, manifest-reported size, available disk space). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'steam_get_library' which likely lists games without storage details.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'steam_get_library' or 'steam_client_status'. Agent must infer usage from purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies the tool reads local manifests, does not force update checks, and snapshots states like paused downloads. This fully describes the tool's side-effect-free behavior.
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 two concise sentences. The first states the tool's action and target, the second clarifies its scope. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the tool's behavior and constraints well, but it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of game names or IDs). Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the response format for completeness.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (limit, offset, include_idle). While limit and offset are common pagination parameters, include_idle is not self-explanatory. The description must compensate for the low schema coverage but fails to add any parameter meaning.
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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'games whose local Steam manifests show an install, update, download, or paused-download state'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'steam_client_status' and 'steam_get_game_install_status' by focusing specifically on download/update status from local manifests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it is a local snapshot and does not force Steam to check for new updates, which clearly implies appropriate usage contexts (e.g., checking current status without triggering network activity). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the listed siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![steam-local-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jackson-Brooks/steam-local-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jackson-Brooks/steam-local-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![steam-local-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jackson-Brooks/steam-local-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jackson-Brooks/steam-local-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Jackson-Brooks/steam-local-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server