yagames-mcp

yagames-upload-build

Upload a game ZIP archive to Yandex Games as a new build. Provide app ID and local archive path; the archive must include index.html at root.

Instructions

Upload a game ZIP archive as a new build. Requires authentication 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>",
      "archivePath": "<archivePath>"
    },
    "name": "yagames-upload-build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appId`	Yes	Game ID from the console
`version`	No	Version string (default: 0.0.0.1)
`archivePath`	Yes	Local path to the ZIP archive containing the game (must have index.html in root)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only notes 'Requires authentication env vars' and the fact that it uploads. It does not disclose side effects, whether an existing build/version is overwritten, validation behavior, or expected results.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a relevant auth requirement without wasting words.

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?

For a mutating upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks guidance on selecting this tool over siblings, behavioral expectations, and any post-upload context. The auth note helps but does not make the definition complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and even adds a useful constraint about index.html in the archive root. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Upload'), a specific resource ('a game ZIP archive'), and a clear outcome ('as a new build'). This distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like yagames-update-draft, yagames-submit-moderation, and yagames-publish.

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 action itself implies when it should be used: when uploading a ZIP as a new build. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over yagames-update-draft or other alternatives, and no mention of lifecycle or prerequisite steps beyond auth.

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

Deploy Server