Warehouse status: how many games are tracked, hours of history recorded, snapshot counts, and data freshness timestamps. Call this first to understand data coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully reveals what the response contains (game counts, history hours, snapshot counts, freshness timestamps) and implies a read-only status operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether any data is modified, whether authentication is required, or whether this endpoint has any side effects—though the status-report framing makes those unlikely.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence leads with the core purpose and immediately lists the concrete data points returned; the second adds a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema status tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, enumerates the return content categories, and tells the agent when to invoke it. There is no missing operational detail that would prevent correct use.
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?
The tool accepts no parameters, so the schema is trivially exhaustive. The description adds useful context about what the returned summary will include, which is more than the empty schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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's resource (warehouse status/data coverage) and enumerates the specific metrics it reports. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the name and 'Call this first' make the operation obvious. It distinguishes itself from data-retrieval siblings by being the meta-level summary tool.
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?
It explicitly instructs the agent to call this first to understand data coverage, which is a clear usage directive. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all specialized data views, making the summary tool's role evident from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct slice of the domain: per-game detail, genre aggregates, top lists, released-game aggro, unreleased-game hype, search, and warehouse status. Even the two 'board' tools are unambiguous because one is explicitly for live/released games and the other for unreleased anticipation.
Tool names are all lowercase snake_case and generally readable, but they mix conventions: noun-style names like game_detail and genre_rollup sit alongside verb-style names like get_summary and search_games, plus adjective-style names like top_played and top_watched. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent enough to be a minor usability issue.
Eight tools is a well-scoped size for an analytics server covering catalog lookup, detailed game profiles, genre rollups, top lists, and specialized signal boards. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious redundancy.
The surface covers the core workflows: understand data coverage, search for games, inspect a game, view rankings, see genre-level aggregates, and check both released-game and unreleased-game attention signals. A minor gap is the lack of a direct per-game aggro score endpoint, though the underlying data in game_detail makes this derivable.