Skip to main content
Glama

game_open

Open a specific cell in a Minesweeper game by providing coordinates to reveal its content and progress gameplay.

Instructions

Open a cell in a game.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
public_idYes
xYes
yYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for "game_open" validates input arguments and calls the rails.openCell method.
    async (input) => {
      const publicId = requireString(
        (input as { public_id?: unknown })?.public_id,
        "public_id"
      );
      const { x, y } = requireCoordinates(input);
      return rails.openCell(publicId, x, y);
    }
  • The schema definition for "game_open", defining input properties and required fields.
    {
      name: "game_open",
      description: "Open a cell in a game.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          public_id: { type: "string" },
          x: { type: "integer" },
          y: { type: "integer" },
        },
        required: ["public_id", "x", "y"],
      },
  • Registration of the "game_open" tool using the addTool helper.
    addTool(
      {
        name: "game_open",
        description: "Open a cell in a game.",
        inputSchema: {
          type: "object",
          properties: {
            public_id: { type: "string" },
            x: { type: "integer" },
            y: { type: "integer" },
          },
          required: ["public_id", "x", "y"],
        },
      },
      async (input) => {
        const publicId = requireString(
          (input as { public_id?: unknown })?.public_id,
          "public_id"
        );
        const { x, y } = requireCoordinates(input);
        return rails.openCell(publicId, x, y);
      }
    ),
Behavior2/5

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, yet it fails to explain what occurs when opening a cell (reveal content, potential game over, cascading reveals), authentication requirements, or error conditions. Only the barest action verb is provided.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise at five words, and while front-loaded with the verb, it sacrifices necessary context. Every word earns its place, but appropriate sizing for this complexity would require additional sentences to cover parameters and behavior.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given three parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of the game state interactions, return values, error states, and coordinate system details that would enable correct agent usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'cell' implies x and y are coordinates, the description offers no guidance on the public_id parameter's semantics, value format, or the coordinate system origin. It only partially compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the action ('Open') and resource ('cell'), but remains vague about the game mechanics (likely Minesweeper given siblings like game_chord and game_flag). It fails to distinguish from similar interaction tools like game_flag or game_chord, leaving the agent unclear on the specific game action semantics.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_flag (marking mines) or game_chord (clearing adjacent cells). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or workflow hints to help the agent select appropriately from the sibling game tools.

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

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/geeknees/minesweeper-mcp'

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