Get all legal moves for the current position. Requires state from play_create_game or play_apply_move.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Game state object returned by 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a prerequisite and the fact that it retrieves legal moves. It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the state, or what errors might occur. For a 'get' tool, the read-only nature is implied but not stated, and no additional context like return format or side effects is provided.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the essential prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input requirement but lacks any information about the return format or the structure of legal moves. It also does not confirm whether the operation is non-mutating. There is no output schema to compensate, so this is a moderate gap, making it minimally viable but not complete.
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 fully describes the single parameter 'state' as a game state object returned by play_create_game or play_apply_move, with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond repeating the same prerequisite. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Get all legal moves') and the resource ('current position'), which is derived from a game state. It mentions the prerequisite of state from play_create_game or play_apply_move, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like chess_get_legal_moves, so it falls short of a 5.
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: after creating a game or applying a move, when you need legal moves. However, it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios where another tool (e.g., chess_get_legal_moves) would be preferred. Context is given but no explicit guidance.
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.
