Get the full engine definition (topology, render config, pieces, setup FEN) for a game variant. Returns the resolved frontmatter used to render and play the game.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | Yes | Game family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi, mancala, morris, hex, landlords-game) | |
| variant | No | Variant slug (default: standard) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / family / descriptionPrevious value: -"Game family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi)"New value: +"Game family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi, mancala, morris, hex, landlords-game)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only lookup through 'Get' and 'Returns', and discloses what the response contains: engine definition, resolved frontmatter, and specific components. It does not discuss errors or invalid variant behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sentences, both informative and waste-free. The main action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a clarifying parenthetical and a concise statement about the return value.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what is returned (full engine definition, resolved frontmatter, topology, render config, pieces, setup FEN). It is mostly complete for a config-fetching tool, though it could mention edge cases like invalid family or unknown variant.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds general context about 'game variant' but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('full engine definition'), and enumerates the contents (topology, render config, pieces, setup FEN). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling play_* tools that handle moves, status, and game creation.
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 phrase 'used to render and play the game' implies when this tool is relevant, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references 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.