Retrieve visual assets for a game from SteamGridDB using its ID, including logos, boxart, hero images, and icons.
Get visual assets for a game from SteamGridDB. Returns URLs for various asset types including transparent logos, boxart/grids, hero images, and icons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gameId | Yes | The SteamGridDB game ID | |
| assetTypes | No | Types of assets to retrieve (default: all types) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns URLs; it does not describe the response structure, failure modes, empty results, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation beyond the 'Get' verb.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence communicates the verb, resource, and return output without filler. Every part earns its place.
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 simple read operation with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it says what the tool does and what it returns. However, with no output schema and no guidance on choosing this over steamgrid_get_best_logo, the description leaves some ambiguity about return format and alternative usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both gameId and assetTypes are already documented. The description loosely lists asset types that match the schema enum, but it adds no additional meaning, syntax details, or context beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it gets visual assets from SteamGridDB for a game. It also names the asset categories (logos, boxart/grids, hero images, icons), which clarifies the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling steamgrid_get_best_logo, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as steamgrid_get_best_logo, nor does it explain when to restrict assetTypes. The intended use is implied by the name and schema but never stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.