Skip to main content
Glama

chess

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Leaderboards

get_leaderboards
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check top-ranked Chess.com players by format (daily, rapid, blitz, bullet). Returns rankings with ratings and win percentages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dailyYesTop 10 daily format players
tacticsYesTop 10 tactics puzzle players
live_blitzYesTop 10 blitz format players
live_rapidYesTop 10 rapid format players
live_bulletYesTop 10 bullet format players

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns rankings with ratings and win percentages, but since an output schema exists, this adds limited extra value. No contradictions found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Efficient single sentence that covers purpose and return content without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and solid annotations, the description is complete. It covers what data is returned and the organization by format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the valid formats (daily, rapid, blitz, bullet), which is not present in the empty schema, making it highly informative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking top-ranked Chess.com players, and lists specific formats (daily, rapid, blitz, bullet). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_games or get_player.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for leaderboard queries, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context is clear from the tool name and sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All chess toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server is named 'chess', yet none of the 34 tools relate to chess. An agent looking for chess functionality would find all tools irrelevant. While individual tool descriptions are clear, the server's name creates a fundamental disambiguation problem: the tool set does not match the server's apparent purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names within the set follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions. However, the server name 'chess' is completely inconsistent with the tool names, which all suggest data research rather than chess.

Tool Count1/5

For a server named 'chess', 34 tools is wildly excessive. Even for a data research server, the count is high, but the server's name implies a narrow chess domain, making the count inappropriate. The tools cover broad topics like SEC filings, Polymarket, and weather, none of which belong in a chess server.

Completeness1/5

The server claims to be about chess, but there are zero chess-related tools. The tool set is completely incomplete for its stated purpose. As a data research server, completeness might be high, but that is irrelevant given the server name.

Resources