steam_wishlistRetrieve a paginated list of games on your Steam wishlist. Use limit and offset to control results, requiring a configured STEAM_API_KEY.
List wishlisted games. Requires STEAM_API_KEY to be configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows to return. | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip, for paging. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds the API-key prerequisite, and the read-only nature is implied by 'List', but it doesn't describe pagination behavior, error cases, or return shape. This is a modest addition over the schema.
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?
Two sentences, with the core action first and the prerequisite second, containing no wasted words.
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 simple read-only listing tool, the API-key note plus schema may be enough to issue a correct call, but the absence of an output schema and any pagination/return description creates a gap. Sibling differentiation is also absent, so an agent must rely on the name alone.
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?
Both limit and offset are fully documented in the schema with defaults and bounds (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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' and resource 'wishlisted games', which is distinct from library- and collection-based sibling tools. Title reinforces the resource. No ambiguity.
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?
The only contextual note is the STEAM_API_KEY prerequisite; there is no discussion of when to prefer this tool over steam_library_list or steam_library_search. Selection must be inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.