Top 100 games by current Steam concurrent players (updated hourly). Optionally scoped to one Steam genre.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| genre | No | Steam genre name, e.g. 'Action', 'RPG', 'Strategy' (exact match; see genre_rollup for the list) |
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 reveals that the result is a fixed list of 100 games, ordered by current concurrent players, updated hourly, and optionally scoped to one genre. It stops short of explicitly stating it is read-only, though that is strongly implied by the wording.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior ('Top 100 games by current Steam concurrent players'), adds freshness in a parenthetical, and folds the optional filter into the same sentence.
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, one-optional-parameter, read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, the ordering basis, update frequency, and optional genre filtering. It would be fully complete if it explicitly stated that omitting genre returns the global top 100, though 'optionally' makes that reasonably inferable.
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 the baseline is 3: the schema already documents the 'genre' parameter as an exact-match Steam genre name with examples and a pointer to genre_rollup. The tool description only restates the optional genre scoping and adds no new parameter-level meaning.
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 opens with the exact resource ('Top 100 games') and the ranking metric ('current Steam concurrent players'), which clearly states what the tool does. The 'updated hourly' qualifier adds temporal specificity, and the concurrent-players framing distinguishes it from sibling 'top_watched' without naming it.
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 implies when to use the tool: to get a concurrent-player ranking, optionally filtered by genre. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary with tools like top_watched or game_detail.
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.