Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASX Options Game MCP

ASX Options Game MCP

by rknell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

game_snapshot

Read-only

Captures a two-minute snapshot of the virtual options game, returning rendered text, structured tables, and actionable control references so an LLM can inspect and act on the current UI.

Instructions

Read the game: rendered text, structured tables and actionable control refs. Starts a background browser and automatically signs in with OS-stored credentials when needed. Snapshots expire after two minutes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "game_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint: it starts a background browser, automatically signs in with OS-stored credentials, and snapshots expire after two minutes. It does not explain failure modes or whether a launched browser session persists, but the key side effects and expiry behavior are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three compact sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the primary read purpose and then adds operational behavior, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter snapshot tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned content, automatic authentication, and snapshot lifetime. It could be fuller about error handling or how the control refs are used with sibling actions, but the core context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: reading the game state as rendered text, structured tables, and control references. It implicitly distinguishes itself from game_screenshot by emphasizing text/tables/control refs, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'Read the game' and the mention of actionable control refs, suggesting it is for inspecting game state and finding controls. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus game_screenshot, game_navigate, or game_act.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools