Export the current board position as a FEN-style notation string. Works for all 6 families (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Export' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'FEN-style' signals a non-standard notation, but it does not explicitly state that the state is not mutated, nor does it describe error behavior for invalid state. The description adds some nuance (support for all families) but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the action and output, and the second adds the scope of all six families. No redundant words or filler, every clause earns its place.
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?
The tool has one simple parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description adequately covers the purpose, the return format, and the supported families. It does not mention edge cases or error handling, but for a simple export operation this is complete enough. Slight deduction for not explicitly linking to play_load_fen.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'state' is already described as 'Game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move', which fully clarifies its semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('current board position'), specifies the output format ('FEN-style notation string'), and explicitly notes it applies to all 6 game families. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like play_load_fen (opposite direction) and play_render_board (visual output).
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 implies usage when you need a serialized board position and clarifies broad family support, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or mention that play_load_fen can consume the output. There is no exclusion guidance, so it stays at 'implied usage'.
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 have clear prefixes (chess_, play_, hex_, oracle_, rpg_, ti4_) that separate concerns, but overlap exists between deprecated chess_* tools and the newer play_* equivalents, plus rpg_random_encounter and oracle_encounter both generate encounters. Descriptions help disambiguate, but the redundancy could mislead agents.
Many tools follow a domain_verb_noun pattern (hex_generate_map, play_get_moves, rpg_search_entities), but there are notable exceptions like dice_roll, game_deck_create, jam_status, and random_player_order that mix noun-first and verb-last conventions. The inconsistent ordering makes it harder to predict tool names.
81 tools is excessive even for a broad games toolkit; the deprecated chess_* tools alone add unnecessary bulk. While the scope is wide, the count exceeds practical limits and could be consolidated into fewer, more focused tools.
The toolkit covers a wide variety of game needs: dice, cards, hex maps, chess, RPGs, TI4, jam management, and galleries. Minor gaps like the score tracker lacking a retrieval method and the absence of some lifecycle operations keep it from being perfect, but core workflows are well covered.
