Export the current board position as a FEN-style setup string, in the form the variant's own frontmatter declares its starting position. Card, tile and dice games have no board position to export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Export' implies a non-mutating read, and the format statement ('the variant's own frontmatter declares its starting position') is useful behavioral context, but it does not state that the operation is side-effect free, nor what happens if the state lacks a board position.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the exclusion clause second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
A simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the action, the output form, and the main scoping exclusion, leaving only minor gaps such as error behavior for states without a board position.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single nested 'state' parameter is already documented as originating from play_create_game or play_apply_move. The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Export the current board position as a FEN-style setup string') and defines the output form relative to the variant frontmatter, which clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling play_load_fen and from board renderers like play_render_board.
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?
Explicitly excludes a class of games ('Card, tile and dice games have no board position to export'), giving a clear when-not condition. It stops short of naming the inverse alternative play_load_fen or describing prerequisites, but the intended context is unambiguous.
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.
