Stops an active Ularn game without saving progress, letting AI agents abandon a session and return to a clean state.
Stop the game in progress without saving.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "end_game"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destruction semantics ("without saving") — progress is discarded, not persisted — but says nothing about whether the termination is reversible, whether an error occurs if no game is running, or what the tool returns.
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?
A single short sentence with the destructive qualifier front-loaded alongside the action. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema control tool, the description covers the action and the one behavioral fact that matters most (discarding unsaved progress). Only the edge-case behavior when no game is active is left undocumented.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is missing on this dimension.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Stop the game in progress") plus a decisive scope qualifier ("without saving"). An agent can distinguish it from sibling new_game, which starts a game rather than terminating one.
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?
Usage is implied: call it to abort a running session. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what an agent should do instead if it wants to preserve progress, and no naming of alternatives among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.