arcade_board_read
Browse the public board. Requires authentication.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
tokenarcade
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions authentication, not read-only nature, idempotency, or side effects. 'Browse' implies non-destructive but is not explicit.
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?
Two succinct sentences with no filler. However, the brevity sacrifices important details, making it less effective than it could be.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description fails to mention the limit parameter's role, lack of filtering, or output structure. It feels incomplete for effective usage.
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 coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'limit' parameter, its purpose (e.g., pagination), or how it affects results. This is a critical gap for a tool with one parameter.
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?
The description 'Browse the public board' clearly states the verb (browse) and resource (public board), distinguishing it from siblings like arcade_board_post. However, it lacks detail on what browsing entails (e.g., listing posts, viewing metadata).
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 only guidance is 'Requires authentication'. No information about when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., arcade_chat_read, arcade_board_post) or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: game actions, board interaction, chat, session management, memory, history, leaderboard, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'arcade_' prefix, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun; some are single verbs (e.g., arcade_chat, arcade_wait) while others are noun_verb or verb_noun. However, names are descriptive and consistently formatted.
Tool Count5/5
16 tools cover the core features of a game arcade server: actions, board, chat, sessions, state, memory, history, leaderboard, and onboarding. The scope is well-balanced, not overwhelming or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers essential game lifecycle and social features. Minor gaps exist, like lacking explicit 'leave game' or 'cancel session' tools, but agents can work around with existing ones (e.g., arcade_state, arcade_wait).