Rules card and notation for a game. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | 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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful auth context: no private key is ever requested, keys stay client-side, and key-entry prompts should be treated as hostile. It does not describe output shape or other side effects, but the read-only annotations lower that burden.
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 appropriately terse and front-loaded. However, the second sentence is a long multi-clause security explanation that repeats the same idea in several ways and is much more about the system's key model than about this specific tool.
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 tool with one documented parameter, the description gives enough to infer that the tool concerns the rules card and notation for a game. But it does not clarify what the returned content actually looks like or when this tool is preferable to sibling tools.
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 already documents the only parameter, game, at 100% coverage as "game id." The description adds no additional meaning, examples, formats, or constraints for the parameter, so the schema-carrying baseline of 3 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?
"Rules card and notation for a game" names a resource but uses no action verb, so it never explicitly states whether the tool fetches, returns, or displays the rules. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like game, view, or legal_moves.
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 about when to call this tool instead of game, legal_moves, view, or other siblings. The keypair security warning is about authentication behavior, not about usage conditions or alternatives.
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.