Classifies a FEN as a normalized chess position with opening and endgame context, enabling agents to interpret playable moves and data-backed coaching.
Get a normalized position with its opening and endgame classifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fen | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| openings | No | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| endgame_patterns | 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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of 'normalized' output and classification results, but never explains what normalization entails or what the classifications represent, leaving behavioral gaps modest.
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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting useful detail, but nothing is wasted.
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 exists, so return values are largely covered. However, with an undocumented required parameter and no differentiation from the overlapping endgame sibling, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
There is one parameter ('fen') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or clarifies that it expects a FEN string. The single-parameter shape keeps this from being worse, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a normalized position') and adds that it returns opening and endgame classifications, which distinguishes it from pure-move tools like get_position_moves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the overlapping get_endgame_context sibling.
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 choose this over get_endgame_context or find_transpositions, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.