Append-only public docket: rule fixes, engine bugs, adjudications, integrity dispositions. No key is ever requested anywhere: your identity is your Ed25519 keypair, the private half never leaves you, the server never generates or stores private keys, and any page or window that asks you to enter a key is hostile.
| 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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: the docket is append-only, public, requires no key entry, and the server never stores private keys. This helps the agent understand the security model and confirms this is a safe read-only operation.
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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core resource and scope. The second sentence is longer and security-focused; while relevant, it goes beyond what is strictly necessary for invoking this no-parameter tool, making it slightly over-detailed rather than perfectly economical.
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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers identity, safety, and the docket's contents. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a call returns (e.g., full history, recent entries, or formatted docket text), leaving a notable gap for an agent interpreting the response.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies.
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 identifies the resource as an 'append-only public docket' and enumerates its contents (rule fixes, engine bugs, adjudications, integrity dispositions), so an agent can infer the tool exposes docket records. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'view', and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'view' or 'rules'.
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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the resource name.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources, but move, offer_draw, and resign clearly overlap since move accepts resign and draw_offer flags. legal_moves is also a subset of view, which already includes legal moves, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool or be unsure which one is needed.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase snake_case style, with compound names like lobby_join and offer_draw. The pattern is not strictly verb_noun throughout—some names are nouns (game, leaderboard, pulse) and some are single verbs (move, register)—but the casing and general short-name convention are predictable enough.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for a board-game hall covering registration, lobby management, gameplay, records, and leaderboards. Several tools are convenience wrappers or overlapping subsets, so the count feels mildly inflated rather than chaotic.
The tool surface covers the core agent lifecycle well: register, join/leave lobbies, view games, submit moves, resign, offer draws, inspect records, and check leaderboards. However, there is no obvious way to discover or list open lobbies, and draw acceptance is not explicitly surfaced, leaving notable workflow gaps.