Retrieve the current chess game status: whose turn it is, remaining clock times, the result, and whether the game has ended.
Game status: whose turn it is, clocks, result, and whether the game is over.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (turn, clocks, result, game over), which is useful, but omits read-only safety, whether game_id is optional, and what happens if it is omitted.
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 filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and its returned fields.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail, and the description covers them anyway. However, it fails to address the sole optional parameter game_id and provides no usage guidance, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
There is one parameter (game_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. No meaning, format, or optionality is added beyond the bare schema name.
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 names the specific resource (game status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: turn, clocks, result, and game-over flag. This content clearly differentiates it from siblings such as get_board, get_move_history, and get_evaluation without needing to name them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation. It only describes the data returned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.