Skip to main content
Glama
freshlife001

Texas Holdem MCP Server

by freshlife001

action_call

Execute a call action in Texas Holdem poker by specifying player and table IDs, enabling AI agents to participate in game decisions effectively.

Instructions

do action call

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
player_idYes
table_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'action_call' tool. Sends a 'performAction' request to the poker server with action 'call', formats the response text, and polls for the updated table state until the player is active.
    else if (request.params.name === "action_call") {
      response = await sendPokerRequest('performAction', { 
        playerId: args?.player_id,
        tableId: args?.table_id,
        action: 'call' 
      });
      view_text = `Player ${args?.player_id} action: Call\n Game state:\n`;
      
      // Get updated table state
      view_text += await pollUntilPlayerActive(args?.player_id, args?.table_id);
    } 
  • Registration of the 'action_call' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "action_call",
      description: "do action call",
      inputSchema: {
          type: "object",
          properties: {
            player_id: { type: "string" },
            table_id: { type: "string" },
          },
          required: ["player_id", "table_id"],
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the 'action_call' tool, specifying required player_id and table_id as strings.
    inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          player_id: { type: "string" },
          table_id: { type: "string" },
        },
        required: ["player_id", "table_id"],
    },
  • Helper function used by the handler to poll the table state until the specified player is the active player, then formats and returns the table state.
    async function pollUntilPlayerActive(player_id:unknown, table_id:unknown) {
        let tableState = null;
        let counter = 0;
        while(true) {
            tableState = await sendPokerRequest('getTableState', { 
                playerId: player_id,
                tableId: table_id 
            });
            counter ++;
            if (counter > 120) {
                break
            }
            
            const currentPlayer = tableState.players.find((p: any) => p.isActive);
            if (currentPlayer && currentPlayer.id === player_id) {
                break;
            }
            await sleep(1000);
        }
    
        if (tableState === null) {
            return '';
        }
    
        return formatTableState(tableState);
    }
  • Helper function to send requests to the poker server via socket.io and handle responses.
    function sendPokerRequest(method: string, params: any): Promise<any> {
      return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
        const request = {
          method,
          params,
          id: Date.now()
        };
        
        //console.log(`[Client] Sending request: ${method}`, params);
        
        socket.emit('action', request, (response: any) => {
          //console.log(`[Client] Received response for ${method}:`, response);
          
          if (response.error) {
            console.error(`[Client] Error in ${method}:`, response.error);
            reject(response.error);
          } else {
            resolve(response.result);
          }
        });
      });
    }
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing. 'do action call' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive, what side effects occur, or what the expected behavior is. The description provides zero behavioral context for a tool that clearly performs some action in a gaming/poker context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, and what little it does provide is poorly structured - it doesn't follow the verb+resource pattern that would help the agent understand the tool's function. The brevity comes at the cost of complete inadequacy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (poker/gaming actions), two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what results are returned. This is a 3-parameter-equivalent tool (including the implied 'action' parameter) with essentially zero documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and two required parameters (player_id, table_id), the description provides absolutely no information about what these parameters mean, their format, or how they should be used. 'do action call' doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of what player_id and table_id represent in the context of this action.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'do action call' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional meaning. It doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon, what type of action is performed, or how this differs from sibling tools like action_bet, action_check, or action_fold. The description fails to provide any meaningful purpose clarification beyond the tool name itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many alternatives available (action_bet, action_check, action_fold, action_raise, join_table, etc.). There's no indication of appropriate context, prerequisites, or distinctions from sibling tools. The agent would have no basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/freshlife001/mcp_poker'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server