Render the current board position as SVG for any playable family (chess, draughts, go, reversi, shogi, xiangqi, mancala, morris, hex, landlords-game).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Board width in pixels for PNG output (default: 480, max: 2048) | |
| state | Yes | Game state object from play_create_game or play_apply_move | |
| highlights | No | Optional cells to highlight (e.g. [{key: 52, color: "#ff0"}]) |
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 provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states SVG output, but the input schema's size parameter says 'for PNG output', creating an unresolved format conflict. The description also fails to disclose what the return value actually is (SVG string, URL, file), how highlights affect the render, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's 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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word is informative; the family list is long but necessary to convey breadth. No filler, no repetition of schema details.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return format and key usage details. It does not resolve the SVG-vs-PNG ambiguity, does not describe the output payload, and gives no guidance on how to obtain a valid state object beyond the schema's pointer. This is a significant completeness gap for a rendering tool that will be invoked across many game families.
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 100%, and the parameter descriptions are genuinely informative: state is tied to play_create_game/play_apply_move, size includes default/max and a PNG-output hint, and highlights has a concrete example. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the PNG hint in size conflicts slightly with the SVG claim in the description.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Render'), a clear resource ('current board position'), and an output format ('SVG'), then enumerates the supported game families. This distinguishes it from specialized siblings like chess_render_svg or hex_export_svg by making its broad cross-game scope explicit.
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 phrase 'for any playable family' followed by the explicit list gives a clear usage context: this is the generic board renderer for those games. However, it never mentions specialized alternatives like chess_render_svg or hex_export_svg, nor does it state when an agent should choose those instead. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
