rules_get_game
Get full rulebook content for a specific game (markdown). For metadata only, use rules_get_game_meta instead.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game slug (e.g. chess, dnd-5e, catan) |
Get full rulebook content for a specific game (markdown). For metadata only, use rules_get_game_meta instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game slug (e.g. chess, dnd-5e, catan) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (markdown) and the scope ('full rulebook content'), which is useful context about what the agent can expect. However, it does not mention potential size, pagination, or error behavior, but for a read-only getter this is reasonably transparent.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a valuable pointer to the sibling tool. No wasted words.
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 read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the return type and how to get metadata instead. It could mention what happens for unknown slugs, but overall it is complete for typical use.
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 'game' parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds 'for a specific game' but no deeper parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles it.
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 tool retrieves full rulebook content in markdown for a specific game. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool rules_get_game_meta by directing metadata-only requests there, which is a strong purpose statement.
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?
Provides an explicit exclusion: 'For metadata only, use rules_get_game_meta instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative tool directly.
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.