Full-text search across all published rulebooks. Returns section-typed results with deep-link anchors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | Limit to specific game slug | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| sectionType | No | Filter by section type (general, board, pieces, setup, movement, capture, winning, special, variants) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are section-typed with deep-link anchors, adding useful output context. However, it does not mention any side effects, limits, or error behavior, though 'search' implies a read-only operation. Adds some value 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, 13 words, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing. Excellent conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the well-described parameters, and the brief but useful output description, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explain pagination or detailed result structure, but the schema covers default limits. Adequate for a search tool without output schema.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces the 'across all' default but doesn't clarify parameter formats or interplay. Adequate.
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 states 'Full-text search across all published rulebooks' with a specific verb (search) and resource (rulebooks), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like rules_get_game or rules_get_page which retrieve specific items. The return type mention ('section-typed results with deep-link anchors') further clarifies its unique function.
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 usage for cross-rulebook search but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, though the phrase 'across all published rulebooks' hints at broad search rather than targeted retrieval. Adequate but could be more explicit.
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.
