yagames-mcp

yagames-submit-moderation

Submit a game draft for moderation review. Yandex Games processes it within 3-5 business days.

Instructions

Submit a game draft for moderation review. Takes 3-5 business days. Requires auth env vars

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": {
      "appId": "<appId>"
    },
    "name": "yagames-submit-moderation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appId`	Yes	Game ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the 3-5 business day delay and auth requirement, but does not mention side effects like the draft becoming locked during review, whether resubmission is allowed, or what the response contains.

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 concise sentence that includes both the core action and two important operational details. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter tool, the description gives adequate invocation context: what action is taken, how long it takes, and that auth is needed. However, it lacks guidance on how the agent should verify submission success or handle post-submission status, especially given no output schema.

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% and the only parameter appId is already described as 'Game ID'. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('a game draft for moderation review'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like yagames-publish and yagames-update-draft. The meaning is immediately 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 mentions the moderation timeline and auth requirement, giving some operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives, such as publishing after approval or updating the draft before submission.

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

Deploy Server