Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SteamOS Devkit

MCP SteamOS Devkit

by elliotttate
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

steam_frame_cef_pages

Enumerate Steam and SteamVR CEF DevTools pages exposed on Steam Frame debug ports to inspect and debug web-based interfaces running in Steam.

Instructions

Enumerate Steam/SteamVR CEF DevTools pages exposed on Steam Frame debug ports.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "steam_frame_cef_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loginNo
portsNo
targetYes
http_portNo
name_typeNoguess

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description only states that it 'enumerates... exposed on debug ports.' It does not disclose read-only vs. mutating behavior, error handling, or what happens if no pages exist. A score of 3 is generous because the basic action is clear, but transparency is lacking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details. Being short is not beneficial if it fails to inform the agent. A score of 3 balances conciseness with the need for more substance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema description, no annotations, and an output schema not elaborated, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the output contains, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (target, login, ports, http_port, name_type). The description does not explain what each parameter does, leaving the agent with no guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Enumerate') and identifies the resource ('Steam/SteamVR CEF DevTools pages'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'open_cef_console' and 'steam_frame_web_ports' by focusing on enumerating pages vs. opening or listing ports.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on when not to use it. The description is purely functional without situational clues.

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