Use AI to analyse the position and suggest the best move. Supports 5 difficulty levels across all 6 playable families.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move | |
| difficulty | No | AI difficulty level (default: medium) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the game state, what side effects it may have, or what the output format looks like. The mention of 'Supports 5 difficulty levels' is a behavioral trait, but key transparency details are missing.
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, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional sentence about difficulty levels and families is informative. 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?
The tool has two parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It fails to explain return values, error behavior, or how the response should be interpreted. While the state parameter schema references play_create_game/play_apply_move, the description does not elaborate on prerequisites or output structure, making it incomplete for real-world 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters (state and difficulty). The description adds 'Supports 5 difficulty levels' which aligns with the difficulty enum, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 ('suggest the best move') and clearly identifies the resource (AI analysis of the position). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'across all 6 playable families,' though it does not explicitly name an alternative like chess_analyze_position.
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 usage when you need an AI-suggested move, but it provides no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives. It does not contrast with sibling tools like play_get_moves or chess_analyze_position, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
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.
