chess-eval
Server Details
Stockfish chess eval: best move, score, principal variation, multipv. $0.005/call via x402.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'best_line' provides a sequential move-by-line analysis with re-evaluation, while 'evaluate_position' gives a static evaluation of the current position. There is no overlap in functionality.
The naming pattern is inconsistent: 'evaluate_position' follows a verb_noun imperative style, while 'best_line' is a noun phrase. Both use underscores, but the lack of a consistent verb-first pattern reduces clarity.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but focused. For a chess evaluation server, two core operations (static evaluation and best-line analysis) cover the primary use case; however, additional tools like setting the position or getting multiple lines could be expected.
The tool set covers basic chess evaluation needs, but there is no explicit tool to set a custom position (likely handled within existing tools) or to retrieve multiple top lines (multipv is mentioned but not a separate tool). These are minor gaps that could limit flexibility.
Available Tools
2 toolsbest_lineCInspect
Play out Stockfish's predicted principal variation as SAN moves with a per-ply eval, re-searching after each ply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fen | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| maxPlies | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral insight: it indicates 're-searching after each ply' implying dynamic computation. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, return format, or prerequisites.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action, but it omits essential parameter and usage details, making it under-specific.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and three parameters with zero schema description, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or error conditions.
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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (fen, depth, maxPlies). The agent gains no extra meaning beyond the schema's basic type and constraints.
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 tool plays Stockfish's principal variation as SAN moves with per-ply eval and re-search, which is specific and distinguishes from the sibling 'evaluate_position' which likely evaluates a single position.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'evaluate_position'. The description implicitly suggests it's for getting a line, but lacks comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
evaluate_positionAInspect
Evaluate a chess position with Stockfish: best move, centipawn/mate score, principal variation, and optional multipv. No mocks — a real single-threaded Stockfish 10 (asm.js) runs in-isolate per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fen | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| multipv | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it uses real single-threaded Stockfish 10 (asm.js) running in-isolate per call, and explicitly states no mocks. This adds value beyond absent annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose and outputs. Slightly verbose with 'No mocks' repetition, but overall efficient.
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?
No output schema provided; the description lists output types but lacks structure (e.g., JSON format). For a tool with 3 params and no schema, more detail is needed for full context.
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%, and the description does not explain parameters like 'fen', 'depth', or 'multipv'. It mentions multipv as optional but provides no format or meaning for the others.
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 explicitly states the tool evaluates a chess position with Stockfish and lists specific outputs (best move, centipawn/mate score, principal variation, multipv). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'best_line' by mentioning multipv and real engine execution.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs 'best_line' or alternatives. The description implies it's for detailed analysis with Stockfish, but lacks exclusion criteria or context for simpler cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!