Retrieve the ordered SAN move list played so far in a chess game to verify positions, resolve disputes, and let spectators follow the sequence of legal moves.
SAN move list so far, in order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses format (SAN) and ordering ('in order'), but says nothing about read-only nature, whether game_id is required, what happens with a null/default ID, or any side effects.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple retrieval tool, though the extreme terseness contributes to other gaps.
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?
Given a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema that covers return values, the description states the core behavior. However, it omits parameter meaning and usage context, leaving the agent to infer too much.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single optional game_id parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter name and title are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the structured field.
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?
The description states the specific resource (SAN move list) and scope ('so far', 'in order'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_board and get_legal_moves. It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't name an alternative, but the content is clear.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about how it relates to other game-state tools. 'So far' lightly implies post-move use, but that is far from actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.