get_stateRetrieve the current match state including round, scores, health, positions, arena size, and end-of-round announcements.
Read the current match state: round, score, your health and position, your opponent's health and position, arena size, and any round/match-end announcement. Positions are pixel coordinates, arena origin top-left.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. The verb 'Read' and the absence of any side-effect language transparently indicate a non-destructive operation, though it does not mention potential error cases or prerequisites like an active match.
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 succinct, lists the state components in a natural flow, and adds useful coordinate-system context without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return content. It does so comprehensively, including the coordinate origin caveat. Slight ambiguity about the format of 'round/match-end announcement' and whether health/position are numeric, but overall sufficient for a simple read tool.
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?
No parameters exist, and the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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?
Clearly states it 'Read[s] the current match state' and enumerates the exact data returned (round, score, health, position, arena size, announcements), distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like move or shoot.
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?
Implicitly clear that this is the observation tool among action siblings, but does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to inspect state' or contrast with screenshot for visual info. Lacks an explicit when-not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.