Skip to main content
Glama
KannanSudhakaran

chess.com MCP Server

by KannanSudhakaran
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 are clearly distinct: one retrieves a player's profile, the other retrieves their stats. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the identical pattern 'get_chess_player_<resource>', using consistent snake_case and the same verb-noun structure. This makes the naming highly predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a domain as broad as chess.com. This is at the borderline where a 1-2 tool set is acceptable if scoped tightly, but it limits overall usefulness.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers only player profile and stats, missing common chess.com resources like games, tournaments, and leaderboards. This is a significant gap for a server claiming to represent the chess.com API, likely causing agent failures for broader queries.

  • Average 3.3/5 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

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get the stats.' It does not mention return format, possible errors, rate limits, or what specific stats are included, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and parameter, making it appropriately concise for a tool with one obvious parameter.

    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?

    For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action and the parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the returned stats or failure behavior, which reduces completeness.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The description's 'by username' adds some meaning by clarifying that the username is the Chess.com player identifier, but this largely repeats the schema's property name. It does not add format, constraints, or examples beyond what the input schema already provides.

    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 tool gets stats for a Chess.com player, using the specific verb 'Get' and a distinct resource ('stats') that differentiates it from the sibling tool get_chess_player_profile. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling or explain the distinction, so it falls short of a perfect score.

    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 given about when to use this tool versus get_chess_player_profile. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions, so an agent has no assistance in choosing between the sibling tools.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'public profile', hinting that no auth is needed, but does not disclose any other behaviors such as rate limits, error responses, or that it is a read-only operation.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and parameter. Every word is purposeful and there is no redundancy.

    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?

    For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose. However, it could add more context about what the profile includes or any necessary prerequisites, making it adequate but not complete.

    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 the description must compensate. It only restates the username parameter with 'by username', adding no extra meaning about format, case sensitivity, or usage nuances beyond what the schema already shows.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('public profile for a Chess.com player'), and the parameter ('by username'). It also distinguishes from sibling get_chess_player_stats by using 'profile' rather than 'stats'.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it over get_chess_player_stats. While the word 'profile' differentiates it from 'stats', there is no direct guidance on alternatives 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

webinar-mcp-aug27 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

webinar-mcp-aug27 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/KannanSudhakaran/webinar-mcp-aug27'

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