Get structured metadata for a game: players, duration, complexity, mechanics, how_to_play, variant list, page list, related games. Lightweight alternative to fetching the full rulebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game slug (e.g. chess, backgammon, cairn) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool returns structured metadata and lists the included fields, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state error behavior or requirements for the game slug, though the output format is adequately described.
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. It front-loads the action and enumerates return fields, with the alternative usage note as a second sentence.
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 metadata getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, content, and relationship to alternatives. No significant gaps exist.
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?
Input schema already describes the single parameter (game slug) with 100% coverage, including examples. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get structured metadata' and enumerates the exact content fields (players, duration, complexity, etc.). It distinguishes itself from full rulebook tools, clearly positioning it as a metadata-specific sibling within the rules_* family.
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?
Explicitly frames itself as a 'lightweight alternative to fetching the full rulebook,' naming the alternative (rules_get_game) and signaling when to choose this tool over heavier fetching operations. This is direct usage 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.
