rules_get_variant
Get rules for a specific game variant
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game slug | |
| variant | Yes | Variant slug |
Moddable Games Tools
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose potential error behavior, whether the response is a full rules document, or any prerequisites. The lack of details about output format or special cases is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and readable, though it could include useful guidance without sacrificing brevity. This earns a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a low-complexity signature (two required string params, no output schema), but the description is overly terse. It does not explain what constitutes a 'variant', how to find valid slugs, or what the returned rules look like. Sibling tools like rules_list_games exist but are not referenced, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (game and variant) with descriptions 'Game slug' and 'Variant slug', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond this; therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'rules for a specific game variant', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rules_get_game and rules_search. However, it does not elaborate on the game/variant relationship or further scope, so it misses the top tier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rules_get_game or rules_search, nor does it reference how to obtain valid game and variant slugs. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
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.
Naming Consistency2/5
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.
Tool Count2/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.