Steam-MCP

get_player_summaries

Retrieve player summaries for one or more Steam IDs.

Instructions

Get player summaries for one or more Steam IDs.

Requires STEAM_API_KEY.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": {"players": [...]}}

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": {
      "steamids": "<steamids>"
    },
    "name": "get_player_summaries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`steamids`	Yes	Comma-separated 64-bit Steam IDs.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for an API key (authentication requirement) and provides the return format, which helps the agent understand the output. However, it lacks details on potential errors or rate limits.

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 concise, with three sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. It includes only essential information: the action, the required API key, and the return format. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, one required field), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, authentication requirement, and return format. The output schema is also described inline, which is sufficient for this tool.

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 already provides a description for steamids ('Comma-separated 64-bit Steam IDs'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get player summaries for one or more Steam IDs,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_player_achievements or get_friend_list, which serve different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly mentions the requirement for STEAM_API_KEY, giving users a prerequisite. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, the purpose is clear, and the context signals differentiate it from siblings.

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

Deploy Server