Skip to main content
Glama
TMHSDigital

Steam MCP Server

by TMHSDigital
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

steam_clearAchievement

Clear (re-lock) a specified achievement for a player's Steam account for development or testing. Requires confirmation to send the request to Steam.

Instructions

MUTATES LIVE ACHIEVEMENT STATE. Default dry_run=true; requires confirm=true to send. Clear (re-lock) an achievement for a player via the partner API. Intended for dev/test use. Requires a publisher API key with server IP allowlisted in Steamworks partner settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appidYesSteam application ID
confirmNoRequired true when dry_run is false. Refuses otherwise.
dry_runNoIf true (default), return the planned request without contacting Steam
steamidYes64-bit Steam ID of the player
achievementYesAchievement API name (e.g. ACH_BEAT_LEVEL_1). Must match a name configured in Steamworks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required true when dry_run is false. Refuses otherwise.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true (default), return the planned request without contacting Steam",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses that the tool mutates live achievement state, defaults to dry_run=true, requires confirm=true to actually send, and has auth prerequisites. This gives an agent important safety context about side effects and guarded execution. It could mention what happens on success or failure, but the dry_run/confirm guard is valuable and clearly stated.

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?

Every sentence carries essential information: mutation warning, dry_run/confirm safety behavior, the actual purpose, the intended use context, and auth requirements. The most important safety warning is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 mutating tool with five parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides necessary context: the mutation effect, safety guardrails, auth constraints, and clarity on what operation it performs. It does not describe response structure or error handling, but those are not expected to be covered when no output schema exists and the schema already documents the parameters.

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 five parameters. The description mainly reinforces dry_run/confirm behavior rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. This matches the baseline of 3: the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Clear (re-lock) an achievement for a player via the partner API.' It also distinguishes itself from likely siblings by emphasizing that it re-locks an achievement, contrasting with steam_setAchievement. The opening line 'MUTATES LIVE ACHIEVEMENT STATE' reinforces the operational effect.

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 clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: 'Intended for dev/test use' and requires a publisher API key with an allowlisted server IP. It does not explicitly name steam_setAchievement as the inverse alternative, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when clearing is the right operation. Some explicit exclusion, such as 'not for production use,' would strengthen it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools