Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
antics-mcp

antics-mcp

Official
by antics-gg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

deploy_game

Deploy a single HTML game file and receive a playable multiplayer URL. Share it for instant multiplayer access.

Instructions

Deploy a single HTML game file and get a playable multiplayer URL (keyless if no projectId).

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": {
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "deploy_game"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYesThe full HTML of the game (single file).
projectIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses keyless behavior based on projectId, but lacks details on destructive nature, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, outcome, and conditional. No wasted words; highly efficient.

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?

Core function and keyless condition are covered, but missing details on returned URL structure, error behavior, and authentication expectations. With no output schema and sparse annotations, more context would help.

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?

Schema covers 50% of params (html described). Description adds 'keyless if no projectId' which clarifies projectId's effect. Could enhance with html size/format constraints.

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 action (Deploy), resource (single HTML game file), and outcome (playable multiplayer URL), with a conditional on projectId. It distinctly sets it apart from siblings like create_project, get_leaderboard, list_projects.

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?

Implied usage from context: deploy_game is for deploying HTML games, unlike project or leaderboard tools. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a project).

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