List all available game rulebooks with metadata (players, duration, complexity, mechanics). Filterable by type, complexity, and mechanics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status (default: all) | |
| category | No | Filter by type (standalone, hub, classic, rpg, component, platform, mod, game) | |
| mechanic | No | Filter by mechanic (e.g. dice, capture, hex, oracle, narrative) | |
| complexity | No | Filter by complexity level |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. For a listing tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
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 and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence briefly lists filters, though it slightly duplicates schema info. Still, it is efficient and without fluff.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description must communicate return values. It does mention metadata fields (players, duration, complexity, mechanics), but it does not cover pagination, ordering, or default filter behavior. Given the simple list nature, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds only a high-level 'filterable by type, complexity, and mechanics,' omitting the status filter and using 'type' as a synonym for 'category,' which adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'game rulebooks,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like rules_get_game or rules_search. It also enumerates the metadata fields returned, making its scope unambiguous.
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 description implies a browsing use case: listing all rulebooks and filtering. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear from the filters mentioned.
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.
