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) | |
| variant | No | Variant slug (default: standard) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states it 'Returns the resolved frontmatter' and lists the components, making the read-only, non-mutating nature clear. It does not cover error conditions or performance, but for a simple retrieval tool this is adequate.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the action, and each clause provides relevant information about the output and its purpose. There is no wasted or redundant text.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description gives a solid outline of the return value (topology, render config, pieces, setup FEN) and its role. It is sufficient for a 2-parameter, read-only retrieval, though it could briefly mention how to find valid variant slugs.
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%, with both 'family' and 'variant' fully described. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning 'game variant', so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
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') with a specific resource ('full engine definition') and scope ('for a game variant'), enumerating the contents (topology, render config, pieces, setup FEN). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_get_moves or play_list_variants.
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 when to use the tool by stating the returned definition is 'used to render and play the game,' indicating a prerequisite role. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using play_list_variants to discover available variant slugs.
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.
