Classify a chess endgame from a FEN and retrieve bounded benchmark positions to support position analysis and coaching.
Get endgame classifications and bounded benchmark positions for a FEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fen | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patterns | No | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| benchmarks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context ('bounded benchmark positions') but never explains what 'bounded' means, how many positions are returned, or how the limit interacts with it. Not contradictory, just thin beyond annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right shape for a tool definition. It is terse to the point of underspecification, but nothing in it wastes the reader's time.
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?
An output schema and rich annotations exist, so return shape and safety need not be restated. Still, the description omits the 'limit' semantics and any differentiation from get_position_context, which are the two things the structured fields cannot supply.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the FEN implicitly ('for a FEN') but says nothing about 'limit' — neither its unit nor what is being limited — leaving an agent to guess the default/ceiling semantics.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and two concrete resources ('endgame classifications' and 'bounded benchmark positions') scoped by a FEN, which is meaningfully more specific than a generic 'get context'. However it never contrasts itself with the sibling get_position_context, so an agent must guess which one to call for a given position.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus get_position_context or get_position_moves, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only implicit cue is the word 'endgame', which the agent must infer as the selecting condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.