new_gameCreate a chess game with your chosen variant and options to begin move validation and state tracking.
Create a game with the selected chess variant and options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that a game is created; it does not disclose whether an existing game is replaced, what initial state is set, whether it is destructive, or any side effects of starting a new game.
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 clear sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces how well structured it is for practical use.
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 tool has unconstrained parameters including an arbitrary nested options object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do more than give a one-line summary. It leaves variant values, option structure, and post-creation behavior undocumented, so an agent cannot call it reliably without external knowledge.
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 only labels the parameters as 'variant' and 'options' without explaining allowed variants, option keys, defaults, or value formats, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('game'), and mentions the key inputs (chess variant and options). It is distinguishable from the sibling read/move/edit/export/import tools because it is the only creation action, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 implies this is the tool to use when starting a new game, which gives some routing signal. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_variants or play_move.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.