renforge_game_stateRetrieve a running Ren'Py game's complete live state, optionally with compact metrics or audio, to inspect gameplay and debug issues.
Return complete live state; optionally include compact metrics or audio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read operation but it never states that explicitly, nor describes permissions, snapshot semantics, or side effects; only the optional-include behavior is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The 'compact' wording is slightly confusing given the sibling of the same name, but structurally it is tight.
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 output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain them. But with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an undefined 'live state', the definition is thin for a tool with a non-obvious include parameter.
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 coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description hints at what 'include' can carry ('compact metrics or audio') but gives no valid values or syntax for the string-array, and says nothing about the required project_path.
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 ('Return complete live state'), and 'complete' implicitly contrasts with the sibling renforge_game_state_compact. However, it never names that sibling or clarifies what 'live state' comprises, so the differentiation from the compact variant is only hinted at.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite an obvious sibling (renforge_game_state_compact) that an agent must choose between. The phrase 'optionally include compact metrics' muddies rather than clarifies that choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.