Skip to main content
Glama

get_steam_owned_games

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the list of games owned by a Steam user using a Steam64 ID, with options to include game names and played free games.

Instructions

Get games owned by a Steam user.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "steamid": "<steamid>"
    },
    "name": "get_steam_owned_games"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
steamidYesSteam64 ID
include_appinfoNoInclude game names (default true)
include_played_free_gamesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.9
  2. Removed
  3. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, private-profile failures, rate limits, or whether an api_key changes results. For an external-API read tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It's appropriately sized for what it says, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With four parameters, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description should clarify the api_key requirement, what the booleans toggle, and the profile-privacy caveat. None of that is present.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: steamid ('Steam64 ID') and include_appinfo are documented, but api_key and include_played_free_games are not. The description says only 'by a Steam user', adding no explanation of what the undocumented parameters do or how api_key affects the call, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get games owned by a Steam user'), so an agent knows exactly what data is returned. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_steam_player_summaries or get_steam_achievements, but the resource noun 'owned games' makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_steam_player_summaries, get_steam_achievements, or search_steam_store. No prerequisites mentioned, such as whether the profile must be public or whether an API key is needed for certain fields.

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