chess_get_opening_book
[REMOVED — engine#98] Opening book resolution is broken in Worker context. No replacement.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant | No |
[REMOVED — engine#98] Opening book resolution is broken in Worker context. No replacement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / fenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "FEN string. Omit for starting position.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / variant / descriptionRemoved value: -"Variant key. Defaults to \"standard\"."Input schema / properties / fen / descriptionPrevious value: -"FEN position (omit for starting position)"New value: +"FEN string. Omit for starting position."Input schema / properties / variant / descriptionPrevious value: -"Variant slug (default: standard)"New value: +"Variant key. Defaults to \"standard\"."Input schema / properties / fen / descriptionPrevious value: -"FEN string. Omit for starting position."New value: +"FEN position (omit for starting position)"Input schema / properties / variant / descriptionPrevious value: -"Variant key. Defaults to \"standard\"."New value: +"Variant slug (default: standard)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns that the tool is broken and non-functional, which is the critical behavioral trait.
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 extremely concise, with the critical 'REMOVED' warning front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 broken tool with no replacement, the description fully communicates the necessary context: it is removed, broken, and should not be used. No additional detail is needed.
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 description does not explain the 'variant' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. While the tool's brokenness makes parameters irrelevant, the definition still fails to add meaning beyond 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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as removed/broken, and 'Opening book resolution' indicates the intended resource/action. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by flagging it as non-functional.
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?
Explicitly states the tool is 'broken' and that there is 'No replacement,' telling the agent never to use this tool. This is clear when-not-to-use 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.