MCP Chess Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this retrieves a 'public' profile, which implies read-only access and no authentication requirements, but doesn't address potential rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the data is cached. More behavioral context would be helpful given the lack of 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or behavioral traits that would be useful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying it's a 'username' for a Chess.com player. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Username' without description), this compensates well by clarifying what the parameter represents, though it doesn't detail format constraints like case sensitivity.

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') and target resource ('public profile for a Chess.com player by username'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_chess_player_stats', but the focus on 'profile' versus 'stats' provides implicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'get_chess_player_stats'. The description mentions retrieving a 'public profile', which implies it's for general player information, but there's no explicit comparison or context about alternative use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.