Retrieve gaming platform records from IGDB with pagination controls. Use it to populate platform lists for game metadata and filtering workflows.
List gaming platforms from IGDB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 30) | |
| offset | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| client_secret | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the name: no mention of auth needs (client_id/client_secret are present in the schema), no pagination behavior, no rate-limit or result-shape context.
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 with no filler, which is structurally clean, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It reads as a restatement of the tool name.
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 4-parameter tool with 0 required params and no output schema, the description does not say what a platform record contains (id, name, abbreviation, generation?) or how limit/offset paginate. With annotations covering behavior, this is a significant but not fatal gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25% — offset, client_id, and client_secret are undocumented. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; notably, the role of the credentials parameters is left entirely opaque.
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 (list) plus resource (gaming platforms) and the data source (IGDB), so it is distinguishable from siblings like igdb_search_games or rawg_list_platforms. It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying scope (all platforms? paginated?), so a 5 is not warranted.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent is not told whether this returns the complete platform catalog or whether it should prefer igdb_search_games for lookup workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.