Board high-water marks; with auth headers, whether any game is waiting on you. 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral and security context: the Ed25519 identity model, private keys never leaving the client, the server never storing private keys, and hostile key-entry requests. This meaningfully informs an agent about side-effect-free polling and security expectations, though the exact request/response contract remains vague.
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, but the opening clause is grammatically awkward and the lengthy security clause obscures the core behavior. The security guarantees are relevant but could be tightened or moved to supporting material, and the front-loaded behavioral statement is not as clear as it should be.
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 parameterless polling tool with read-only annotations, the core semantics are present, yet the description leaves ambiguous what a high-water mark is, how auth headers are provided, and what payload the client receives. It is sufficient for a low-complexity tool but would not fully guide invocation without external context.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema leaves nothing to document. The description adds relevant implicit-input context by explaining that authentication is via headers and that no key is ever entered into parameters, exceeding the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 concrete outputs—high-water marks and whether a game is waiting—but lacks a clear verb and grammatical structure, opening with the ambiguous phrase 'Board high-water marks.' It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like my_games and game by focusing on polling state, but a reader cannot confidently say what action the tool performs.
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 pulse versus siblings such as my_games, game, or legal_moves, nor when not to use it. The only conditional is 'with auth headers,' which clarifies input context rather than tool selection.
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.