Join the current chess game to receive your colour, opponent, and board position, so you can begin play under server-enforced turn order and legality.
Join the current game: your colour, the opponent, and the position.
| 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 no side effects, authentication requirements, failure modes, or whether joining mutates the game state—only that the tool joins the game and returns some information.
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. However, the colon list ('your colour, the opponent, and the position') mostly restates return information that the output schema already provides.
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?
For a one-parameter game-joining operation with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It omits the meaning of game_id, when joining is appropriate versus merely checking status, and any behavioral expectations for the join action.
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 description does not mention the sole parameter, game_id, at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the optional game identifier and how it selects which game to join, but it does not.
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: 'Join the current game.' This clearly identifies the action and target, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_status or get_board beyond the verb 'join'.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the word 'Join,' leaving the agent to infer the context without routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.