Skip to main content
Glama
scorezilla-mcp
by isco-tec

bootstrap_leaderboard

Creates a new game and its first leaderboard in one call, then returns ready-to-paste SDK and widget integration code for starting score tracking from scratch.

Instructions

Use this when starting from scratch — creates a new game AND its first board in one call, then returns ready-to-paste integration code wired against the board. The fastest path from "I want a leaderboard" to "scores are flowing." Do NOT call this if the developer already has games — call list_games first and use bootstrap_leaderboard only when no game exists yet. The response includes snippets.sdk (framework/server code), snippets.widget (a themeable drop-in HTML embed; null for server_only), and a plain-English recommendation to relay to the developer — paste snippets.sdk (and/or snippets.widget) into their code. The optional axis args tailor the output: set hostingPattern='client_with_server' for anti-cheat (server-validated scores), playerIdentityStrategy='auth_provider' (+ authProvider) for OAuth identity, or serverLanguage for a non-TypeScript server. Omit them all for the simplest anonymous + client-only setup. Retry-safe: if a call times out or the connection drops, calling it again with the SAME arguments within 5 minutes returns the original game and board instead of creating a duplicate. After that window, or on a partial_failure or slug_taken_active error, do NOT bootstrap again — call list_games to see what was created, then finish with create_board / mint_key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortDirNo"desc" for high-scores-win, "asc" for lowest-time-winsdesc
gameNameYesDisplay name of the game (any string)
gameSlugYesURL-safe slug for the game, e.g. "my-racing-game" (2–42 chars, lowercase + hyphens; derive from gameName)
boardNameYesDisplay name of the leaderboard
boardSlugYesURL-safe slug for the board, e.g. "high-scores" (2–42 chars, lowercase + hyphens)
scoreKindNoScore type: integer (default), duration_ms (time trials), or floatinteger
authProviderNoRequired when playerIdentityStrategy is 'auth_provider'. supabase/clerk/auth0/firebase get a server-side JWT-verifying secure-submit endpoint (real anti-cheat); google ships a browser helper; github/apple/discord are planned; custom is the escape hatch.
hostingPatternNoIntegrity model. 'client_only' (default): the browser holds the public key — simplest, but NO anti-cheat. 'client_with_server': your server validates + signs scores — use this for competitive boards where cheating matters. 'server_only': server reads/writes and renders SSR HTML (max integrity, SEO-friendly, no widget).
serverLanguageNoLanguage for the server-side snippet. Required for hostingPattern 'server_only'; optional for 'client_with_server' (defaults to typescript, which gets the turnkey createScoreSubmitHandler endpoint). python/go/csharp return a best-effort snippet.
playerIdentityStrategyNoHow players are attributed. 'anonymous' (default) mints a local UUID, no PII; 'prompted_local' asks once and saves to localStorage; 'auth_provider' uses OAuth (also set authProvider); 'server_authoritative' has the game server attach the playerId (needs hostingPattern client_with_server or server_only); 'custom_callback' for a dev-supplied function.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a creating/mutating tool, explains the returned snippets and recommendation, and documents retry-safe idempotency within a 5-minute window plus specific error conditions.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and fastest-path framing, then moves through exclusions, return values, argument tailoring, and retry/error behavior. Despite its length, nearly every sentence carries actionable information for correct invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, but the description explains the key response fields (snippets.sdk, snippets.widget, recommendation) and how to use them. It also covers retry semantics and failure recovery, which is unusually complete for a 10-parameter bootstrap tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational guidance beyond the schema by explaining that the optional axis args tailor output and naming specific combinations (auth_provider + authProvider, serverLanguage for non-TypeScript, omitting all for anonymous client-only).

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?

The description states a specific compound action: creating a new game and its first board in one call, then returning integration code. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_games and the create_* siblings by framing itself as the from-scratch bootstrap path.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use (starting from scratch, no existing games), when-not-to-use (developer already has games), the alternative to check first (list_games), and post-error guidance (do not bootstrap again after partial_failure or slug_taken_active; finish with create_board / mint_key).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.