Skip to main content
Glama

get_top_games

Retrieve a list of popular games from Twitch with customizable limits to discover trending content for streaming or viewing.

Instructions

人気のゲームのリストを取得します

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo取得する最大ゲーム数(デフォルト: 20)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that fetches the top games using the Twitch API client and returns a formatted list of games with id, name, and boxArtUrl.
    export async function handleGetTopGames(apiClient: ApiClient, args: { limit?: number }) {
      const games = await apiClient.games.getTopGames({ limit: args.limit });
      
      return formatResponse(
        games.data.map(game => ({
          id: game.id,
          name: game.name,
          boxArtUrl: game.boxArtUrl,
        }))
      );
    }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema for optional limit parameter.
    {
      name: 'get_top_games',
      description: '人気のゲームのリストを取得します',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          limit: {
            type: 'number',
            description: '取得する最大ゲーム数(デフォルト: 20)',
            minimum: 1,
            maximum: 100,
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:96-99 (registration)
    Dispatches the tool call to the handleGetTopGames function in the MCP server request handler.
    case 'get_top_games':
      return await handleGetTopGames(this.apiClient, {
        limit: args.limit as number | undefined
      });
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets a list' but doesn't describe what 'popular' means (e.g., based on views, ratings, or time), whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned list. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese: '人気のゲームのリストを取得します'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'popular' entails, the source of data, potential limitations, or example use cases. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to help the agent understand behavioral aspects and expected results, but it doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema (type, description, min/max). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and no additional param info is needed in the description.

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?

The description clearly states the purpose: '人気のゲームのリストを取得します' translates to 'Get a list of popular games', which is a specific verb ('get') and resource ('list of popular games'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_game' (singular) and 'search_categories', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_streams' or other list-fetching tools. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_game' for a single game, 'search_categories' for broader searches, or 'get_streams' for stream-related data. There's no context about use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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/mtane0412/twitch-mcp-server'

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