List all variants for a game with structured metadata (players, board, playable status, topology, engine config). Much richer than parsing the rulebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game slug (e.g. chess, backgammon, draughts) | |
| playable | No | Filter to only engine-playable variants | |
| topology | No | Filter by board topology (grid, hex, track, graph, tableau) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by listing the metadata fields and contrasting with the rulebook, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or any exclusions beyond the obvious filter parameters.
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 contain exactly the necessary information: the action, the resource, the output contents, and a value comparison. No filler or 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 straightforward list operation, the description covers the core purpose and the returned metadata. Since there is no output schema, it could specify the return format or allowed value examples, but the simplicity of the tool and the clear parameter schema make it sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions topology and playable status, which map to the playable and topology filter parameters, but it does not add meaningfully beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'List all variants for a game' and specifies the structured metadata fields. It hints at distinguishing value ('Much richer than parsing the rulebook') but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as play_list_variants or chess_list_variants.
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 phrase 'Much richer than parsing the rulebook' provides an implicit use case—when structured variant data is needed instead of raw rules—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative variants-list tools or when not to use it.
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.
