Steamworks Release Assistant

apply

Destructive

Sync Steamworks sections to approved values: run a dry-run diff, confirm changes, then write safely. Never publishes; store tags go live only if agreed.

Instructions

Make Steam match the approved values of one section. Always call with dry_run=true first and show the user the changes; write (dry_run=false, user_confirmed=true) only after they agreed. Nothing is ever published: BROWSER writes are drafts the user reviews and publishes in Steamworks. The one exception is "store_tags": Steam applies tags at once, so it also needs goes_live_now=true, and only after the user agreed to exactly that.

Sections: "leaderboards" (Web API, publisher key), "build" (uploads the SteamPipe scripts with steamcmd), and with the BROWSER mode: "cloud", "installation", "achievements" (main game), "store_text" (short and long description in every approved language), "store_page" (the store page form: links, support info, legal line, system requirements, platforms, language table, genres, categories, third-party DRM/accounts; empty fields never clear Steam's), "store_assets" (uploads prepare_images' capsules and library images into the slots Steam has no image for yet; never replaces one, and also sets the library logo position), "depots" (OS, architecture and language of depots that already exist, through the Depots page's own Save), "store_tags" (store.tags in order, through the Tag Wizard; live at once; community tags are never removed). Every call saves a snapshot of what Steam had first.

Args: path: Folder that holds steamworks.yaml. section: What to apply. app: main, demo or playtest (each has its own app id). dry_run: Only show the differences (default). user_confirmed: The user saw the dry-run changes and agreed. remove_extra: Also delete rows that exist only in Steam. Only when the user explicitly asks for it. upload_icons: achievements: also upload the icons (prepared from achievements.*.icon). goes_live_now: store_tags: the user agreed that the tags go live on the store at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`app`	No	main
`path`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`section`	Yes
`remove_extra`	No
`upload_icons`	No
`goes_live_now`	No
`user_confirmed`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: writes are drafts until published in Steamworks, snapshots are saved before every call, empty fields never clear Steam's, store_assets never replaces existing images, community tags are never removed, and store_tags goes live immediately. These side effects are precisely what an agent needs before a destructive-capable call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the critical dry-run-then-write workflow before the dense section catalogue, so the important guidance is not buried. It is long, but the length is largely justified by ten sections and eight parameters; the section list is information-dense rather than padded.

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 complex 8-parameter, 10-section mutation tool, the description covers the workflow, per-section semantics, parameter gates, drafted-vs-live distinction, and snapshot behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: all eight parameters are explained (path, section, app, dry_run, user_confirmed, remove_extra, upload_icons, goes_live_now), including gating conditions like 'only when the user explicitly asks for it' for remove_extra.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make Steam match the approved values of one section') and then enumerates the exact section names it operates on with per-section behavior. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like set_field, scan_project, or mark_applied without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: 'Always call with dry_run=true first and show the user the changes; write (dry_run=false, user_confirmed=true) only after they agreed.' It further names the store_tags exception with its own gate (goes_live_now=true). When-to-use and when-not conditions are fully spelled out.

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