Skip to main content
Glama

Lichess

by io.github.pipeworx-io

User

user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a Lichess player's public profile by username, including ratings across all variants (bullet, blitz, rapid, classical, chess960, etc.) and account metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoUser ID
perfsNoPerformance ratings across variants
titleNoTitle (GM, IM, FM, etc.)
onlineNoOnline status
seenAtNoLast seen timestamp
usernameNoUsername
createdAtNoTimestamp

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: +[
+  {
+    "username": "hikaru"
+  },
+  {
+    "username": "magnuschess"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "createdAt": {
+      "description": "Timestamp",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "User ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "online": {
+      "description": "Online status",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "perfs": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "properties": {
+          "prog": {
+            "description": "Progress",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "prov": {
+            "description": "Provisional",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "rating": {
+            "description": "Rating",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rd": {
+            "description": "Rating deviation",
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "description": "Performance ratings across variants",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "seenAt": {
+      "description": "Last seen timestamp",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "Title (GM, IM, FM, etc.)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "username": {
+      "description": "Username",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying the returned data (ratings, metadata). No contradiction; it enriches what the agent knows beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, efficiently front-loaded with verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 simple fetch tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the behavior and return values. No gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description does not add specific parameter meaning beyond the parameter name. However, the single parameter 'username' is self-explanatory in context (Lichess player username). Lacks compensation for schema's lack of description.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Lichess player's public profile', and specifies what it includes (ratings across all variants and account metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'users' (plural) or 'user_status'.

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 explains that it fetches data by username, which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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