Retrieve a chess.com player's profile details by username. Get ratings, stats, and online status from the Chess.com API.
Get the profile of a chess.com player by username.
:param username: player username.
:return: player profile information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' a profile and returns 'player profile information', without mentioning potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data format specifics. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and docstring-style annotations for parameters and returns. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include more guidance without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks any contextual guidance about when to use this tool versus its sibling, and it does not disclose any behavioral details. For a tool with no annotations, this is a noticeable gap.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. However, it merely restates the parameter as 'player username', adding no meaningful detail beyond the schema's 'username' string. It does not explain username format, case sensitivity, or any constraints, providing little value.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the profile') and the resource ('chess.com player by username'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_chess_player_stats' by focusing on 'profile' rather than 'stats', though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_chess_player_stats'. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the names which tool is appropriate, which is not reliable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.