Get a specific page/section from a game rulebook (e.g. character creation, combat rules, marketplace). Use rules_get_game_meta to see available pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game slug (e.g. cairn, dnd-5e) | |
| page | Yes | Page slug (e.g. character-creation, combat-and-difficulty) | |
| section | No | Section name (e.g. rules, classes, spells). Default: rules |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, or output format. The pointer to rules_get_game_meta adds useful context about needing to know page slugs, but transparency is limited.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, includes an illustrative example, and directs to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place 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?
The description outlines the core workflow: use this tool to get a specific page, and use rules_get_game_meta to discover pages. It does not mention the optional section parameter default, but the schema handles that. Since there is no output schema, stating the return type would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for a simple getter.
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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond examples. The examples in the description (e.g., character-creation) reinforce page slugs but do not compensate for the schema's already complete parameter documentation. 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 clearly states the tool 'Get a specific page/section from a game rulebook' with concrete examples, making the action and target resource explicit. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing rules_get_game_meta for discovering available pages.
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 provides an explicit alternative: 'Use rules_get_game_meta to see available pages,' guiding when to use a different tool. However, it does not contrast with other rules_* siblings like rules_get_game or rules_get_variant, so usage context is slightly incomplete.
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.
