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

bootstrap_leaderboard

Creates a new game and leaderboard in one call, then returns ready-to-paste SDK and widget code so you can start submitting scores immediately.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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)
sortDirNo"desc" for high-scores-win, "asc" for lowest-time-winsdesc
scoreKindNoScore type: integer (default), duration_ms (time trials), or floatinteger
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.
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.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that it creates a game and board, returns specific snippet fields, and explains how optional parameters alter behavior (e.g., anti-cheat, identity strategy). No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but front-loads the primary purpose. While dense, every sentence adds value. Could be more structured, but appropriate for the complexity.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (snippets.sdk, snippets.widget, recommendation) and how each optional parameter affects the output. Complete for a complex 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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context, like which combination of options yields the 'simplest anonymous + client-only setup', enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 clearly states it creates a new game and its first board in one call, returns integration code, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'when starting from scratch' and not to call if games already exist.

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?

Explicitly says to use when starting from scratch and not to call if developer already has games, with an alternative action ('call list_games first'). Provides clear context for decision-making.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/isco-tec/scorezilla-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server