Read the open game of a type: its id, board, whose turn it is, who holds each seat and every legal move. Open to everyone.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "read_game"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ttt |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context: 'Open to everyone' discloses that no authentication is required, and the enumerated payload (board, turn, seats, legal moves) tells the agent what state it will receive. It stops short of describing behavior when no open game exists for a type.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence carries the verb, the resource, the full list of returned fields, and the access model, with a short clause about openness. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields does important work and is present. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (no open game, or whether the game must be 'open' and what makes it so), which is minor for a one-parameter read tool.
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 0%, but the single parameter is an enum of self-explanatory values (ttt, chess) with a default. The phrase 'of a type' conveys that one open game exists per game type, which is the key semantic, though the description never mentions the default value or the enum values explicitly.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the open game of a type') and enumerates the returned fields (id, board, turn, seats, legal moves), which makes the scope unmistakable. It never names the mutating counterpart play_move as an alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
'Read the open game of a type' implies when to use it (inspecting current game state before acting), and 'Open to everyone' clarifies there is no access barrier. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to play_move for making a move, leaving the read/write split to be inferred.
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.