Submit a valid draw claim based on threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule. Prevents games from continuing when a draw is legally required.
Claim a draw you are entitled to by rule (threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule | No | threefold repetition | |
| game_id | No |
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the claim immediately ends the game, whether it fails when the rule condition is not met, or what error/state results from an invalid claim — all material for a state-mutating tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the precondition attached inline. No filler, nothing displaced.
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 means return values need no explanation, and the rule values are covered. However, with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description should at minimum clarify game_id defaulting and the outcome of a successful claim; those omissions leave it only partially complete.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description names the two legal values for 'rule' (threefold repetition, fifty-move rule), adding real meaning there, but says nothing about 'game_id' — whether null means the current game or which game is targeted. Half the parameters remain unexplained.
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 ('claim_draw') and pins down the mechanism ('by rule'), distinguishing it conceptually from the sibling offer_draw/accept_draw. It never names those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the routing, which keeps it below 5.
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?
'you are entitled to by rule' supplies a precondition, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of offer_draw or accept_draw as alternatives for the non-rule cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.