Get a game's review score and sample reviews, covering lifetime or recent activity. Use app ID, language, review type, and filters to target the exact reviews you need.
Get the review score and sample reviews for a game (lifetime and/or recent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.0Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / appid / titleRemoved value: -"Appid"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / country_code / titleRemoved value: -"Country Code"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / day_range / titleRemoved value: -"Day Range"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / language / titleRemoved value: -"Language"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / limit / titleRemoved value: -"Limit"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / purchase_typeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "store",
+ "description": "Whose reviews count: 'store' (default) matches the store page (Steam purchases only for a paid game, excluding key activations; everyone for a free game); 'steam' or 'all' to force either.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / recent_max_reviewsAdded value: +{
+ "default": 600,
+ "description": "Fallback only: most reviews to count for review_filter='recent' if Steam refuses the exact count (100-10000).",
+ "maximum": 10000,
+ "minimum": 100,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / response_format / $refRemoved value: -"#/$defs/ResponseFormat"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / response_format / enumAdded value: +[
+ "markdown",
+ "json"
+]Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / response_format / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / review_filter / titleRemoved value: -"Review Filter"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / properties / review_type / titleRemoved value: -"Review Type"Input schema / $defs / AppReviewsInput / titleRemoved value: -"AppReviewsInput"Input schema / $defs / ResponseFormatRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Output format for tool responses.",
- "enum": [
- "markdown",
- "json"
- ],
- "title": "ResponseFormat",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"steam_get_app_reviewsArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "steam_get_app_reviewsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning 'lifetime and/or recent', which maps to the review_filter parameter. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or the fact that the summary is always returned regardless of limit. It adds some value beyond annotations but remains limited.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It is appropriately sized and free of filler. It could arguably include a note about the sibling analysis tool, but as is, it is efficient and not overly verbose.
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 tool with many parameters, the description is minimal. It explains the core function (score and samples) and the lifetime/recent scope, but it does not mention the response_format option, language/country filters, or the fact that the score summary is always returned. The rich schema compensates for some of this, but the description still lacks enough context to differentiate from steam_analyze_app_reviews and to guide parameter choices.
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?
The schema itself provides detailed descriptions for most sub-parameters (appid, limit, language, day_range, review_type, purchase_type, review_filter, response_format, recent_max_reviews). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, and schema description coverage is 0% from the description's perspective. Since the schema already carries the meaning, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('review score and sample reviews') with a scope qualifier ('for a game (lifetime and/or recent)'). It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling steam_analyze_app_reviews, which likely performs a deeper analysis. Thus it is clear but not fully distinguishing.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as steam_analyze_app_reviews or other review-related tools. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.