Public game record; hidden information only after the game ends. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | game id |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the record is public, hidden information is only revealed after the game ends, and the system never requests or stores private keys. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the security note. The security warning is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool but is short and does not undermine clarity. Every sentence earns its place, though the key warning could arguably live elsewhere.
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 read-only single-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what the public game record contains, what happens for missing or non-public games, or what the response looks like, and it does not clarify the relationship to siblings. The added security note is contextually broader than this tool but not harmful.
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 schema covers the single id parameter 100% with the description 'game id', so the schema already documents the parameter. The tool description adds no further meaning about the id format or how it relates to the game record. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high.
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 identifies the resource as a public game record, which implies a read-only fetch by game id, and adds a meaningful detail about hidden information being withheld until the game ends. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get', and it does not directly differentiate itself from siblings like replay or view, but the core purpose is understandable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as replay, view, or legal_moves. The security warning about keys is unrelated to tool selection, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
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.