Get board diagram SVG URL for a game variant. Returns the diagram path, topology, and rendering metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game family slug (e.g. chess, go, agon) | |
| variant | No | Variant slug (default: standard) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and discloses the return contents (path, topology, rendering metadata), which gives the agent useful expectations. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple getter 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. Every word is useful with no redundancy.
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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what it does and what it returns. It does not explain how to use the returned URL, but that is beyond the scope of a basic getter. The description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.
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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'game variant' which aligns with the variant param, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own property descriptions. Thus it earns the baseline score.
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 specific action ('Get board diagram SVG URL') and the resource ('for a game variant'), and further clarifies what is returned ('diagram path, topology, and rendering metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rules_get_game or chess_render_svg.
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—when you need a board diagram SVG URL for a variant—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for non-use. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it only meets the implied usage level.
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.
