Skip to main content
Glama
freshlife001

Texas Holdem MCP Server

by freshlife001

action_raise

Enables a player to increase their bet in Texas Holdem poker by specifying player ID, table ID, and raise amount. Facilitates strategic gameplay within the MCP server.

Instructions

do action raise

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes
player_idYes
table_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the action_raise tool by calling sendPokerRequest with 'performAction', action='raise', and the provided amount, player_id, table_id. Then polls for the updated table state using pollUntilPlayerActive and formats the response.
    else if (request.params.name === "action_raise") {
      response = await sendPokerRequest('performAction', { 
        playerId: args?.player_id,
        tableId: args?.table_id,
        action: 'raise',
        amount: args?.amount 
      });
      view_text = `Player ${args?.player_id} action: Raise to $${args?.amount}\n Game state:\n`;
      
      // Get updated table state
      view_text += await pollUntilPlayerActive(args?.player_id, args?.table_id);
    } 
  • Registers the action_raise tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema requiring player_id, table_id, and amount.
    {
      name: "action_raise",
      description: "do action raise",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          player_id: { type: "string" },
          table_id: { type: "string" },
          amount: { type: "number" },
        },
        required: ["player_id", "table_id", 'amount'],
      },
    },
  • Input schema for action_raise: object with player_id (string), table_id (string), amount (number), all required.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        player_id: { type: "string" },
        table_id: { type: "string" },
        amount: { type: "number" },
      },
      required: ["player_id", "table_id", 'amount'],
    },
  • Helper function used by action_raise (and others) to poll the table state until the player is active, then formats it.
    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);
    }
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 none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what side effects occur, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with three required parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to describe behavioral traits.

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 represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, making its conciseness detrimental rather than beneficial. It lacks any structure or logical organization of information.

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 (three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in what appears to be a poker/gaming context), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about the domain, no explanation of what 'raise' means in this system, and no information about expected outcomes or error conditions. The description fails to provide the minimal necessary context for effective tool use.

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 three undocumented parameters (amount, player_id, table_id), the description provides absolutely no information about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. It doesn't explain what 'amount' represents, how player_id and table_id should be formatted, or any relationships between parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 raise' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon, what 'raise' means in this context, or how this differs from sibling tools like action_bet or action_call. The description fails to communicate the tool's purpose beyond its name.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or distinctions from sibling tools like action_bet, action_call, or action_check. The agent receives zero guidance about when this specific 'raise' action should be selected over other available actions.

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