Render the current board position as SVG for any playable family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Board width in pixels for PNG output (default: 480, max: 2048) | |
| state | Yes | Game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move | |
| highlights | No | Optional cells to highlight (e.g. [{key: 52, color: "#ff0"}]) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states output as SVG, but the schema's size parameter is described as 'for PNG output,' creating an unresolved ambiguity. It also doesn't explain behavior for invalid states, unsupported families, or whether highlights alter the rendering.
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?
One sentence, no filler, front-loads the core action, output format, and scope. It is compact and scannable.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain return format and behavior; it only gives a high-level promise. The SVG/PNG discrepancy and lack of error/edge-case information make it insufficient for reliable invocation.
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?
All three parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond mentioning 'current board position,' which maps to the state parameter.
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 ('Render'), identifies the resource ('current board position'), and specifies output format ('SVG') plus supported game families, distinguishing it from chess-specific renderers like chess_render_svg and hex map renderers.
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?
It implies generic use across multiple game families but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., chess_render_svg) or mention exclusions. The phrase 'for any playable family' provides context but no direct 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.
