Steamworks Release Assistant

launch_watch

Monitor your game's Steam review score, player count, and price after release, comparing each check to the last to reveal trends.

Instructions

After release: the game's review score and count, players right now and price, against the last check (each check is kept in .steam-mcp/market/launch.jsonl). Call it again any day to see the trend.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "launch_watch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description usefully explains the non-read-only aspect by disclosing that each check is persisted to .steam-mcp/market/launch.jsonl and compares against the previous run. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but the persistence side-effect is well covered.

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 "After release" condition, keeps the payload list compact, and uses the parenthetical only for essential persistence detail. Two sentences with little waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description supplies the post-release context, metric set, and persistence behavior. The only real gap is the unexplained "path" parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is one required parameter, "path", at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what it expects (project path? file path? Steam app id?). Unlike the zero-parameter baseline, this description leaves the sole parameter entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource (post-release metrics: review score/count, current players, price) and an implicit verb, tracking against the last check. It is clear what the tool does but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like study_reviews or price_brief.

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?

"After release" gives a clear temporal context for when to invoke it, and "Call it again any day to see the trend" tells the agent to reuse it for trend tracking. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., versus study_reviews).

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