Steam-MCP

search_store

Search the Steam store for apps by name. Returns a list of matching results with app ID, name, and icon.

Instructions

Search the Steam store for apps by name.

Uses the Steam community search API. No API key required.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": {"query": str, "results": [{"appid": str, "name": str, "icon": str}]}}

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_store"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query.
`count`	No	Max results.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses the Steam community search API, requires no API key, and shows the return format including success/error structure. It does not mention rate limits or pagination but provides enough context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for technical detail, and a clearly formatted return structure. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple search tool with 2 parameters, both documented in schema, and an output schema provided, the description is complete. It covers purpose, API details, and return format. No further information is necessary for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond the return format, which validates the query parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 searches the Steam store for apps by name, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_app_details (which retrieves details for a known app) by focusing on search functionality.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (when you need to find apps by name) but does not explicitly specify when not to use or mention alternatives. It notes that no API key is required, which is helpful, but lacks guidance on choosing between this and other search-like tools (e.g., query_workshop_items).

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

Deploy Server