Retrieve available public Steam Community discussion sections and app hub surfaces for a game, including numeric section IDs and URLs.
Lists the available public Steam Community discussion sections and forum-like app hub surfaces for a game's hub, including each section's numeric id when applicable and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid | Yes | Steam application ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned payload shape (section id and URL), which is useful since no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about whether this is a read-only/public call, whether authentication is needed, or how results are ordered or bounded.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource and adds no padding. Slightly dense but every clause (public sections, hub surfaces, ids, URLs) carries information.
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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what is returned (sections, ids, URLs) and the scope (a game's hub). Minor gaps remain around ordering, pagination, and auth, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('appid' documented as Steam application ID). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Lists') and a precise resource ('public Steam Community discussion sections and forum-like app hub surfaces for a game's hub'), scoped to one appid. It is distinguishable from list_steam_forum_topics (sections vs. topics within a section), though it does not explicitly name that sibling to reinforce the distinction.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_steam_forum_topics. The mention of 'numeric id when applicable' hints that ids feed downstream calls, but no prerequisite, sequencing, or exclusion is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.