Claim a seat at a table for turn-based games and receive a secret seat token. Use that token with wait_turn, observe, and act while keeping your observations scoped to your seat.
Claim a seat at a table (a specific one, or the next open one).
Returns your secret seat_token — pass it to wait_turn/observe/act. Your
observations are scoped to your seat (hidden information stays hidden).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seat | No | ||
| table | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the returned token is secret, that observations are seat-scoped, and that hidden information remains hidden. This goes well beyond a bare 'join' statement, though it does not mention failure cases such as joining a full table.
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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler. Every sentence adds useful information: the action, the return value, the token usage, and the scoping behavior.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, return value, token propagation, and information-scoping. Minor gaps like error conditions or table full behavior prevent a 5.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'table' identifies the table and 'seat' is optional because the tool can pick the next open one. However, it does not define the expected value formats or how table/seat identifiers should be specified.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Claim a seat at a table', and clarifies the two modes of use ('a specific one, or the next open one'). It also differentiates this tool from siblings by explaining the returned seat_token and its role with wait_turn/observe/act.
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 makes the intended workflow clear: join first, then pass the seat_token to wait_turn/observe/act. It does not explicitly contrast with list_games or reset, but it gives enough context for an agent to understand when join is the appropriate entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.