Ranks Steam games by how much players like them, learned from head-to-head duels.
The community consensus for one game on needmoar.games: how liked it is (the share of a typical library it beats), its tier and rank, the full distribution of opinions, and the games players who like it also like or dislike — useful for "how popular / well-liked is X?" and "games similar to X". Pass a Steam appid — resolve names with search_games first. The response links to the game's page you can cite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid | Yes | Steam appid of the game (resolve names with search_games). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it returns community consensus, distribution, and links to the game's page—useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
The description is somewhat long but front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no fluff.
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?
Given the single parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (how liked, tier, rank, distribution, similar games) and usage context, making it complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for appid. Description adds meaning by explaining it's a Steam appid and advising to resolve names with search_games, which helps the agent use the parameter correctly.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns community consensus for a game on needmoar.games, including how liked it is, tier, rank, distribution, and related games. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like search_games for name resolution and versus for comparison.
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 description advises when to use (for 'how popular/well-liked is X?' and 'games similar to X') and instructs to resolve names with search_games first. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with versus, but context from siblings strengthens guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolve one or more game names to their Steam appids on needmoar.games. Call this first to turn a title like "Hollow Knight" into the numeric appid the versus and game_detail tools need. Accepts several names at once — pass every game the user mentioned in a single call and match each to its result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max matches to return per name (1-10, default 5). | |
| queries | Yes | Game names to look up. Pass every title the user mentioned at once. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it accepts multiple names and returns matches, but does not elaborate on response format or potential errors. Given annotations carry the safety burden, the description adds moderate value.
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?
The description is three sentences, each contributing distinct value: purpose, usage order, and batching instruction. No redundant or extraneous information.
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 lookup tool with two parameters and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential context: when to use, how to batch, and the output mapping. However, it could improve by briefly describing the response structure (e.g., array of matches with appid and name).
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both parameters have inline descriptions. The description reiterates the batching advice for 'queries' and default for 'limit', but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The title 'Resolve games to Steam appids' and description clearly state the tool's purpose: converting game names to numeric appids. It identifies the specific resource (needmoar.games) and distinguishes from siblings (versus, game_detail) which require appids as input.
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?
Description explicitly advises to call this tool first and to batch all user-mentioned game names in one call. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives beyond the implied sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Head-to-head verdict for two games on needmoar.games: which one players like more, each game's community score (the share of a library it beats) and rank, and the full distribution of opinions on both. Use this to answer "do people prefer A or B?". Pass Steam appids — resolve names with search_games first. The response links to the matching /vs page you can cite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid_a | Yes | Steam appid of the first game (resolve names with search_games). | |
| appid_b | Yes | Steam appid of the second game. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds context about what the response contains (community score, rank, full distribution of opinions, link to /vs page), fully disclosing behavior beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, inputs, output, and usage. No redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content: community score, rank, opinion distribution, and a link. It also mentions the source (needmoar.games) and the prerequisite step (use search_games), making it complete for selection and invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds usage guidance ('resolve names with search_games first' and clarifies that appids are Steam appids), providing value beyond schema.
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?
The description clearly states it provides a head-to-head verdict for two games, including community scores, ranks, and opinion distributions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning search_games for name resolution, indicating this tool is for comparison after IDs are obtained.
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 description explicitly says to pass Steam appids and resolve names with search_games first, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool and when to use the sibling. It also states the purpose: to answer 'do people prefer A or B?'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
game_detailsearch_gamesversusClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
The gaming attention graph: Steam players, Twitch live viewers, aggro ratio, hype, history.
Steam concurrent players by game over time, monthly trends and growth. Free key at trendsmcp.ai
Steam concurrent player trends for any game over time. Free key at trendsapi.ai
Consensus rankings for 75,000+ products across 2,600+ niches.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: search_games resolves names to IDs, game_detail provides detailed info for one game, and versus compares two games. No overlap in functionality.
Tool names are not consistently patterned: search_games uses verb_noun, game_detail uses noun_noun, versus is a single word. While readable, the inconsistency could be confusing.
Three tools cover the core workflow of looking up games, getting details, and comparing them. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The tool set provides a complete workflow: resolve names, get detailed info, and compare two games. No obvious gaps for the stated community consensus domain.
