leaderboardsFetch the top-10 rated players across every Lichess variant in a single call; returns one ranked list per variant (bullet, blitz, rapid, classical, and more).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blitz | No | Top 10 blitz players | |
| rapid | No | Top 10 rapid players | |
| bullet | No | Top 10 bullet players | |
| classical | No | Top 10 classical players |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "blitz": {
+ "description": "Top 10 blitz players",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "bullet": {
+ "description": "Top 10 bullet players",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "classical": {
+ "description": "Top 10 classical players",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "rapid": {
+ "description": "Top 10 rapid players",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare safety traits (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds behavioral specifics: returns top-10 per variant, lists example variants, and emphasizes single-call nature.
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, no wasted words. Front-loads the key action and scope, then lists example variants. Perfectly concise for the complexity.
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?
With no parameters, an output schema existing, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and behavior. Complete for a simple read-only listing tool.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so description adds no parameter info. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description adequately explains the tool's output without needing param details.
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?
Clearly states verb (fetch), resource (top-10 rated players per Lichess variant), and scope (across every variant in a single call). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'top_players' by specifying multiple variants.
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?
Implied usage: get broad overview of top players across all variants. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned, but the context of sibling tools provides some differentiation.
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.
The server mixes chess tools with numerous data query tools from Pipeworx, causing significant overlap. Multiple ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research have similar purposes, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Chess tools are distinct but compete with many unrelated tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: chess tools use mostly underscores (top_players, opening_explorer), Pipeworx tools use mixed styles (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile), and memory/subscription tools use simple verbs (remember, subscribe). The naming is inconsistent across the set.
With 41 tools, the count is high and unfocused. A chess server would typically have 10-15 tools; the remaining 31 tools from Pipeworx are unrelated and overwhelm the set. The server tries to cover too many domains, making it bloated for its primary purpose.
The chess-specific tools (10) cover basic queries but lack deeper chess analysis (e.g., puzzles, board evaluation). The extensive Pipeworx tools are out of scope for a Lichess server, resulting in an incomplete surface for the expected domain and an excessive surface for unrelated data lookups.