Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Edgegap MCP Server

Edgegap MCP Server

Official
by edgegap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List where servers can run

edgegap_list_locations
Read-only

List available Edgegap deployment cities and filter by application version to see current capacity, helping choose geo coordinates for deployments or inform players where they can be served.

Instructions

List the cities Edgegap can deploy to. Pass application and version to see only the locations with capacity for that version right now. Use it to pick geo_coordinates for edgegap_deploy when you have no player IPs, or to tell a developer where their players can be served from. For the ping beacons game clients use to measure latency, see edgegap_list_ping_beacons.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "edgegap_list_locations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNoDefault 100.
versionNo
applicationNoWith version: only locations with capacity for it now.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalNo
showingNo
messagesNo
locationsNo
next_stepNo
truncatedNo
filtered_forNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "filtered_for": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "locations": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "city": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "continent": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "country": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "latitude": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "longitude": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "region": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "messages": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "next_step": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "showing": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.7.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the filtered result reflects capacity "right now," i.e. volatile data — but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering, which matters for a list endpoint that can span many cities.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the filtering behavior, then the sibling pointer. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and there are no required parameters to warn about. The only real omission is pagination behavior for a potentially long list, which the description never addresses.

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 coverage is 50%; application and version are documented in-schema and the description restates that pairing as a capacity filter, adding a little semantic value. page and limit get no mention in the description, and with the schema silent on page, half the parameter surface is explained in neither place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — "List the cities Edgegap can deploy to" — and immediately clarifies that passing application+version narrows the result to locations with current capacity. It also explicitly separates itself from edgegap_list_ping_beacons, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions: pick geo_coordinates for edgegap_deploy when no player IPs are available, or report to a developer where players can be served from. It names the alternative tool (edgegap_list_ping_beacons) for the latency-beacon case, leaving nothing to inference.

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