Export the current board position as a FEN-style notation string. Works for all 10 families (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi, mancala, morris, hex, landlords-game).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is an export operation (non-mutating), that it returns a string, and that it covers all 10 families. It could mention behavior on invalid or partial game states, but for a read-only conversion utility the main behavioral traits are covered.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, and the family scope follows immediately. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 one-parameter, read-only utility with no output schema, the description plus input schema covers the essential contract: input state, output string, and supported families. It could be slightly richer about FEN-format caveats for non-chess families, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.
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 input schema already documents the only parameter at 100% coverage, including that it is the game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond 'current board position', which is already implied by the schema.
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 an explicit action ('Export'), a precise resource ('current board position'), and the result ('FEN-style notation string'). The family list and the sibling play_load_fen make it easy to differentiate exporting from loading FEN data.
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 clearly implies when to use it: when the current board position needs to be exported as a FEN-style string, and it explicitly confirms all 10 families are supported. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings such as play_load_fen or play_render_board, so guidance about alternatives is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear prefixes (chess_, play_, hex_, oracle_, rpg_, ti4_) that separate concerns, but overlap exists between deprecated chess_* tools and the newer play_* equivalents, plus rpg_random_encounter and oracle_encounter both generate encounters. Descriptions help disambiguate, but the redundancy could mislead agents.
Many tools follow a domain_verb_noun pattern (hex_generate_map, play_get_moves, rpg_search_entities), but there are notable exceptions like dice_roll, game_deck_create, jam_status, and random_player_order that mix noun-first and verb-last conventions. The inconsistent ordering makes it harder to predict tool names.
81 tools is excessive even for a broad games toolkit; the deprecated chess_* tools alone add unnecessary bulk. While the scope is wide, the count exceeds practical limits and could be consolidated into fewer, more focused tools.
The toolkit covers a wide variety of game needs: dice, cards, hex maps, chess, RPGs, TI4, jam management, and galleries. Minor gaps like the score tracker lacking a retrieval method and the absence of some lifecycle operations keep it from being perfect, but core workflows are well covered.
