Retrieve played and opening/endgame theory moves available from a normalized FEN position, with a configurable result limit for chess analysis and coaching.
List bounded played and theory moves leaving a normalized position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fen | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| moves | No | ||
| fen_norm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add real behavioral content by disclosing that results mix 'played' (database) and 'theory' (book) moves and that output is bounded, but it says nothing about ordering, deduplication, or what happens when no moves exist.
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; nothing is redundant. The terseness comes at the cost of clarity, but there is no wasted text to trim.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param) and has an output schema plus rich annotations, which covers return values and safety. Still, the description leaves essential ambiguity about FEN input format and the played-vs-theory distinction, which materially affect interpretation of results.
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%, so the description must carry the load, but it never explains what 'fen' expects or what 'limit' bounds in practice. 'Bounded' is the only nod to the limit parameter, and 'normalized position' only hints at FEN normalization — both too vague to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 (list) and a resource (moves) tied to a position, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_position_context or find_transpositions. However, the key qualifiers 'bounded', 'played and theory', and 'normalized position' are unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot confidently say what a returned move actually is.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus find_transpositions (which presumably also works from a position) or get_position_context. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage 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.