Skip to main content
Glama

Lichess

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Top Players

top_players
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lichess leaderboard for a single chess variant: the highest-rated Lichess accounts in one perf (bullet, blitz, rapid, classical, correspondence, chess960, crazyhouse, atomic, antichess, horde, kingOfTheHill, racingKings, threeCheck, ultraBullet), up to 200 entries. Returns each player username, title, and current rating in that variant. Answers who the top-rated blitz or bullet players on Lichess are right now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
perfYes
limitNo1-200 (default 50)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of items returned.
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "perf": "blitz"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 100,
+    "perf": "bullet"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "games": {
+            "description": "Games played",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "User ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "prog": {
+            "description": "Progress",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rating": {
+            "description": "Rating",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rd": {
+            "description": "Rating deviation",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "score": {
+            "description": "Score",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "username": {
+            "description": "Username",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the 200-entry cap, the fact that ratings are current for that variant, and the exact return fields. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is mostly efficient. The list of variant names is necessary given the lack of an enum. The final sentence about answering top-rated player questions is slightly redundant with the earlier return-field description but still adds use-case framing.

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 read-only leaderboard tool with good annotations and an available output schema, the description is complete. It covers valid inputs, result bounds, output fields, and intended use case, leaving no major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% with only the limit parameter described. The description compensates by listing all valid perf values and clarifies that the tool returns data for a single variant at a time, reducing ambiguity around the 'perf' parameter.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the Lichess leaderboard for a single chess variant, enumerates all supported perf types, and specifies the output fields (username, title, rating). This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like leaderboards or users.

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 gives clear usage context by stating it 'Answers who the top-rated blitz or bullet players on Lichess are right now.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is unambiguous.

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

All Lichess 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources