Create a game state from a FEN-style position string. Works for all 10 families.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fen | Yes | Position string in FEN-style notation for the family | |
| family | Yes | Game family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi, mancala, morris, hex, landlords-game) | |
| variant | No | Optional variant slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state whether loading a FEN overwrites existing state, validates input, persists the game, or what the tool returns. 'Works for all 10 families' is the only behavioral claim, and it mostly mirrors the schema's family enum.
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 short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the family scope stated in a single clause. Every word 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?
For a state-creating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the return value or success signal, overwrite behavior, validation errors, and how this tool relates to play_export_fen or play_create_game in a typical workflow.
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 parameter descriptions already define 'fen', 'family', and 'variant'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'FEN-style', which is also present in the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a game state from a FEN-style position string.' The FEN focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_create_game and aligns with the reverse operation play_export_fen, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.
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 usage is implied: when you have a FEN-style position string and want to create a game state from it, use this tool. 'Works for all 10 families' adds scope context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as play_create_game or play_apply_move.
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.
