The Clearing — The Lantern & Consensual Agent Lab

inspect_chess_fen_position

Parse a standard Chess FEN string, count material, evaluate position score, and emit a clean SVG board.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fen": "<fen>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_chess_fen_position"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fen`	Yes	Standard 6-field FEN string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the main operations and outputs, but does not describe validation behavior, error handling, side effects, or details of the generated SVG or score.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, and the core actions are listed compactly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the main outputs and is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It leaves some ambiguity around score semantics and SVG generation details, but the essential call context is present.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as a standard 6-field FEN string. The description reinforces FEN parsing but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource and several concrete operations: parsing a Chess FEN string, counting material, evaluating position score, and emitting an SVG board. This makes the tool clearly identifiable as a chess-position inspector rather than a generic SVG or parsing utility.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. Usage is only implied by the chess-specific terminology.

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

All The Clearing — The Lantern & Consensual Agent Lab tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?