Skip to main content
Glama
antics-gg

antics-mcp

Official
by antics-gg
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

antics-mcp

Multiplayer for your game, in one prompt. An MCP server that lets an AI agent generate a web game and deploy it to a playable multiplayer URL — rooms, live state sync, and leaderboards — inside a single conversation.

AI can write a whole game — a single HTML file or a multi-file project — but it can't stand up a server, so everything it builds is single-player. antics-mcp is the missing piece: your agent writes the game, calls one tool, and hands you back a link your friends can open. No backend, no player accounts.

→ antics.gg · full API in one file: antics.gg/llms.txt

Install

Claude Code:

claude mcp add antics -- npx -y antics-mcp

Claude Desktop / Cursor / any MCP client — add to your MCP config (claude_desktop_config.json, Cursor's mcp.json, etc.):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "antics": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "antics-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Then just ask: “Make a 2-player game and deploy it.” The agent writes it, calls deploy_game, and returns a playable URL — no copy-paste, no site visit, no login.

Related MCP server: Agent Arcade MCP Server

Tools

Tool

What it does

Login?

deploy_game

Deploy a game (html for a single file, or files for a multi-file project) → returns a playable multiplayer URL. Keyless (ephemeral room) unless given a projectId.

No

create_project

Create a project; returns its id, publishable key (pk_), and secret key (sk_, shown once).

Yes

get_leaderboard

Read a project's leaderboard (top scores).

Yes

list_projects

List your projects.

Yes

set_share_preview

Brand how a project's room links unfurl on social — title, description, and image.

Yes

deploy_game works without any login — it returns an ephemeral, keyless URL you can share immediately (rooms hold 8 players and last 24h). To persist links + leaderboards and raise the limits, sign in once with npx antics-cli login (GitHub), then the owner-scoped tools unlock and deploy_game can target a project.

How the multiplayer works

Your agent doesn't need to know any of this up front — antics.gg/llms.txt is the complete API in one file, written so an LLM can integrate it one-shot. In brief: a game calls joinRoom({}), shared room state is host-authoritative with per-player slices, writes coalesce to ~20 Hz, and a leaderboard is one submitScore() call. The deployed game runs at a /r/<code> URL with an invite link + QR built in.

Links

Available Tools

4 tools
create_projectB

Create a project; returns its id, publishable key (pk_), and secret key (sk_, shown once).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the secret key is shown once, which is useful behavioral info. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, or potential side effects beyond creation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every element (action, return values, notable behavior) serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values adequately. Minor omissions like error handling or validation details prevent a perfect score.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the required 'name' parameter. It does not describe what the name should be or any constraints, leaving a significant gap.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a project') and specifies the return values (id, publishable key, secret key with note that secret is shown once). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (deploy_game, get_leaderboard, list_projects) which are not creation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints provided beyond the basic action.

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

deploy_gameA

Deploy a single HTML game file and get a playable multiplayer URL (keyless if no projectId).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYesThe full HTML of the game (single file).
projectIdNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses keyless behavior based on projectId, but lacks details on destructive nature, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, outcome, and conditional. No wasted words; highly efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Core function and keyless condition are covered, but missing details on returned URL structure, error behavior, and authentication expectations. With no output schema and sparse annotations, more context would help.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers 50% of params (html described). Description adds 'keyless if no projectId' which clarifies projectId's effect. Could enhance with html size/format constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Deploy), resource (single HTML game file), and outcome (playable multiplayer URL), with a conditional on projectId. It distinctly sets it apart from siblings like create_project, get_leaderboard, list_projects.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage from context: deploy_game is for deploying HTML games, unlike project or leaderboard tools. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a project).

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

get_leaderboardB

Read a project's leaderboard (top scores).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes
boardNo

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Read'), which is non-destructive, but provides no details on return format, pagination, or ordering of scores. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose key behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the 'board' parameter is, and does not describe the output format, limiting the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'projectId' implicitly via 'a project', but the optional 'board' parameter is completely ignored. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a project's leaderboard, with the parenthetical '(top scores)' adding specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' which lists projects, not scores.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to use 'get_leaderboard' instead of 'list_projects' or other tools. Context of use is entirely omitted.

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

list_projectsB

List your projects (requires login).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only notes the login requirement, omitting details such as read-only nature, side effects, output format, or pagination behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior. It does not explain what 'your projects' entails, whether the list is complete or paginated, or handle edge cases.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter-specific info, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description 'List your projects (requires login)' clearly states the verb (List) and the resource (your projects), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools have different actions (create, deploy, get), so no confusion arises.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_project or deploy_game. It only mentions a login requirement, but lacks context for usage decisions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 4 tool updatesv0.1.1
    • First observedcreate_project
    • First observeddeploy_game
    • First observedget_leaderboard
    • First observedlist_projects
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: project creation, game deployment, leaderboard retrieval, and project listing. No overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_project, deploy_game), making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its apparent purpose: project creation, game deployment, and leaderboard access. Each tool serves a clear function without bloat.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers core operations (create, deploy, list, read scores) but lacks update and delete tools for projects, and there is no tool for managing users or game configurations.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/antics-gg/antics-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server