Skip to main content
Glama
CyprianFusi

MCP Chess Server

by CyprianFusi
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves public profile information, the other retrieves stats. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'get_chess_player_*' pattern, making it easy to infer their functionality from their names.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is minimal, but for a server focused solely on retrieving Chess.com player data, it could be acceptable. However, it feels thin compared to typical API coverage.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers profile and stats, but lacks other common operations like listing games or tournaments. There are notable gaps for a full player information server.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool gets a 'public profile', implying no authentication, but does not mention rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid player name), or the nature of the profile data. The behavioral expectations are minimally conveyed.

    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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, it could be expanded to include critical usage details without losing conciseness.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about input constraints, expected player name format, and whether the player must exist. For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, this is somewhat adequate but still incomplete.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameter. It only repeats the parameter name 'player_name' in context—'by player_name'—without explaining format, case sensitivity, or examples. This provides no value beyond the schema's property name.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'public profile for a Chess.com player', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_chess_player_stats' which presumably returns stats rather than profile data. The phrase 'by player_name' indicates the required parameter.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites are needed, or any conditions under which it should not be used. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and the sibling tool.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'get stats', which implies a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, error handling, rate limits, or required permissions.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. Efficient but could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the simple tool (one param, output schema present), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on return values, even though output schema exists. Sibling tool is mentioned externally, not in description.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds minimal value by stating 'by player_name', which repeats the parameter name without adding format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema's required string type.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    Description clearly states it gets stats for a Chess.com player using a player name. It is specific about the resource and verb, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_chess_player_profile' which focuses on profile data.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of excluded scenarios. The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-chess-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-chess-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CyprianFusi/mcp-chess-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server