List available variants for a game family. Each variant can be passed to play_create_game. Variants with flags (e.g. +random) can be requested as "slug+flag".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | Yes | Game family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi, mancala, morris, hex, landlords-game) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / family / descriptionPrevious value: -"Game family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi)"New value: +"Game family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi, mancala, morris, hex, landlords-game)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It explains that variants are identified by slug, that flags exist, and that they must be requested as 'slug+flag' (e.g., '+random'). This is meaningful behavior beyond a plain 'list variants' statement. It does not describe output structure in detail, but covers the key interactive behavior.
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?
Three short, dense sentences each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second connects the output to the downstream consumer, and the third explains a non-obvious input format. No filler or redundancy.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines what is listed, how results are consumed, and how flag variants are requested. It could additionally state the expected return shape, since there is no output schema, but the tool is simple enough that the omission is minor.
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 schema already fully describes the one required parameter, 'family', including an enumerated list of valid families. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond saying variants belong to a family and that flag suffixes are used. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the exact operation ('List available variants') and the resource ('for a game family'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It further distinguishes the tool by linking each variant to play_create_game, which separates it from family-listing or game-status tools.
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 the tool: after choosing a game family and before creating a game with play_create_game. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the relationship to play_create_game gives sufficient contextual guidance.
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.