Skip to main content
Glama
icue

Steam Review and Forum MCP

by icue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

query_steam_review_corpus

Retrieve a targeted subset of stored Steam reviews with server-side date, sentiment, language, playtime, and text filters, plus pagination and optional field selection.

Instructions

Queries a stored Steam review corpus with server-side filtering, pagination, and optional field selection. Use it to retrieve only the subset of reviews you actually need for analysis. Date, sentiment, and playtime threshold filters require a corpus created with review metadata enabled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of matching reviews to return.
fieldsNoOptional field selection for returned reviews. Omit to return the full stored review records.
offsetNoZero-based offset within the filtered result set.
date_toNoInclusive end date filter. Use ISO 8601 or YYYY-MM-DD.
sort_byNoOptional sort field for the filtered reviews.
voted_upNoOptional sentiment filter. true for positive reviews, false for negative reviews.
corpus_idYesOpaque identifier returned by the review corpus tools.
date_fromNoInclusive start date filter. Use ISO 8601 or YYYY-MM-DD.
languagesNoOptional language filter. Omit or include 'all' to search across all languages.
date_fieldNoWhich timestamp field to use for date filtering.timestamp_created
text_containsNoOptional case-insensitive substring match against cleaned review text.
sort_directionNoSort direction when sort_by is provided.desc
max_playtime_foreverNoOptional maximum author.playtime_forever filter, in minutes.
min_playtime_foreverNoOptional minimum author.playtime_forever filter, in minutes.
max_playtime_at_reviewNoOptional maximum author.playtime_at_review filter, in minutes.
min_playtime_at_reviewNoOptional minimum author.playtime_at_review filter, in minutes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.5

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that date/sentiment/playtime filters require a corpus created with review metadata enabled, which is valuable. However, it doesn't cover permissions, result shape, pagination limits, or failure modes beyond the metadata caveat.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, all earning their place: purpose front-loaded, usage hint, then prerequisite. No filler or repetition of name/title. Slightly dense but 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?

Covers the purpose and a critical prerequisite for filters. For a 16-param retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs more: pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), field-selection tradeoffs, or what happens on empty results. The metadata caveat is the strongest addition, but completeness is only moderate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a minor gating note about which filters require metadata-enabled corpora, which is useful, but otherwise defers to the schema as expected. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Queries a stored Steam review corpus' with server-side filtering, pagination, and field selection. It distinguishes itself from create_steam_review_corpus and aggregate_steam_review_corpus by being the retrieval tool, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Provides a contextual hint ('retrieve only the subset of reviews you actually need for analysis') and notes a prerequisite (metadata-enabled corpus), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. aggregate_steam_review_corpus or read_steam_forum_topic_corpus_chunk. Usage is implied rather than directive.

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