chesscom-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: player profile, stats, online status, current games, archives, monthly games, PGN text, titled players, club profile, and club members. Even the two monthly game tools are clearly separated by format (JSON vs. PGN).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent get_<resource>_<detail> pattern using snake_case. Prefixes are uniform (get_player_*, get_club_*, get_titled_players), making the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools covering player, game, club, and titled-player data, the set is well-scoped for a Chess.com data server. Each tool provides a meaningful, non-redundant data retrieval capability.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the most common read-only Chess.com operations: profile, stats, online status, games (current, archived, monthly, PGN), titled players, and club info. Minor gaps exist (e.g., leaderboards, tournaments, or single-game lookup), but the core domain surface is well represented.
Average 3.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by warning that returned member data is 'untrusted external data,' which is useful for AI agents. It also hints at boundedness (likely pagination), but does not fully explain rate limits or behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the term 'bounded' is vague and unclear, slightly reducing clarity despite the concise structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain pagination behavior, how to specify the club, what categories exist, or the structure of the returned member data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It offers no explanation of limit, offset, url_id, or category, nor their formats or defaults. Only the word 'category' appears, but without semantics.
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 verb 'Get' plus resource 'club-member category' clearly indicates this retrieves club member data. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_club_profile, though the term 'bounded' is ambiguous and could mean paginated or a specific category scope.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like get_club_profile or player-related endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'untrusted external data', which is a useful behavioral warning beyond annotations. However, it does not explain response format, chunking behavior, or handling of invalid inputs.
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, tight sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('bounded character segment', 'monthly PGN text', 'untrusted external data') contributes meaning and is appropriately concise.
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?
Despite good annotations and a clear purpose, the lack of output schema and minimal parameter documentation leaves gaps about return values, error handling, and how offsets work. The description is sufficient for a basic read operation but not fully complete for a tool with 5 parameters.
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?
The schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of username, year, month, max_chars, or offset_chars. The phrase 'bounded character segment' loosely relates to max_chars/offset_chars but provides no syntax or range details.
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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('bounded character segment of monthly PGN text'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_player_games_by_month by the segmentation aspect. The term 'untrusted external data' adds relevant context without obscuring the core purpose.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_player_games_by_month. The phrase 'bounded character segment' hints at pagination or partial retrieval, but the description does not state when this should be preferred or what scenarios call for it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: returned fields are untrusted external data. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explicitly warning about data quality, which is valuable context for the agent.
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, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose and includes a relevant caveat, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns and warns about untrusted data. No output schema exists, so return details are not required. The only minor gap is the lack of parameter explanation, but overall it is sufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the username parameter. The schema only provides a title, so the description fails to add meaning. Although the parameter is straightforward, the description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving a Chess.com player's public profile, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_player_stats, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The note about untrusted data is a caveat, not a usage directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds behavioral context about pagination ('bounded page') and the untrusted nature of the data, which is useful for agents deciding how to handle results.
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 that conveys the core functionality without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has few parameters and is a simple listing endpoint. The description covers pagination and data trustworthiness, and the sibling context makes the purpose clear, though it does not detail the return structure.
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?
With zero schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the username, limit, or offset parameters. The phrase 'bounded page' vaguely suggests pagination but does not clarify parameter semantics.
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 tool retrieves a bounded page of current Daily Chess games, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like game archives or monthly games by specifying 'current Daily Chess games' and 'bounded page'.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_player_game_archives or get_player_games_by_month. The description does not mention exclusions or specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important caveat that returned fields are untrusted external data, which goes beyond the annotations and warns the agent about data quality. This is useful additional 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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a semicolon to add the important caveat. It front-loads the tool's purpose and includes only necessary information.
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?
The description adequately captures the tool's purpose but leaves gaps: it does not clarify the url_id parameter or indicate what constitutes a club profile, and there is no output schema. For a simple fetch tool, this is minimal but not complete, especially with siblings that could cause confusion.
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?
The input schema contains one parameter, url_id, with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what url_id means or provide format expectations, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema documentation.
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 tool retrieves a Chess.com club's public profile, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource as a club profile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_profile (player) and get_club_members (members).
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 usage when one needs a club's public profile, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_club_members or provide when/when-not guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive properties. The description adds valuable context by stating 'upstream data is untrusted,' warning the agent that the external source may be unreliable, and 'normalized' indicating output standardization, which are not present in annotations.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence clearly states the action and object; the second provides an important trust caveat. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple listing operation with one parameter, rich safety annotations, and no output schema. The description provides enough core information—list, monthly, archives, normalized, untrusted—to set expectations, though it could mention the return structure or the relationship to the game-fetching siblings for fuller completeness. Overall acceptable.
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?
The input schema has a single required `username` parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain anything about the parameter, such as type expectations, validation, or constraints. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema description as required for low coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'normalized monthly Chess.com game archives', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player_games_by_month which fetch actual game data. It also adds the relevant qualifier 'normalized' to convey a transformation behavior.
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 clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_player_games_by_month or get_player_games_pgn_by_month. The context implies 'use this to get the archive list first', but that guidance is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting the data is 'untrusted external data' and 'public', which warns the agent about data source reliability and access scope.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get'), and contains no redundant words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 rich annotations, the description covers purpose, data source trust, and public scope. It would benefit from a bit more detail on what specific statistics are returned, but the absence of an output schema doesn't heavily penalize this.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no direct elaboration on the 'username' parameter. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's property title, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool 'Get a Chess.com player's public ratings and statistics', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_player_profile (profile info) and get_player_game_archives (games) by focusing on ratings and statistics.
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?
Usage is implied: when you need ratings and statistics. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools like get_player_profile, which might also contain ratings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, safe operation. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the result is bounded (implying pagination via limit/offset) and that the returned names are untrusted external data, warning the agent about data quality.
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?
A single sentence with no redundant words. The key facts are front-loaded: action, resource, and the important caveat about untrusted data. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter set and strong annotations, the description provides adequate context for most use cases. It highlights the bounded nature and the untrusted data caveat, but lacks accepted title values and explicit pagination guidance. Still, the tool is simple enough that this is nearly 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate. It clarifies that 'title' refers to a Chess.com title, but provides no enumeration of accepted values (e.g., GM, IM). The limit and offset parameters are not explained at all beyond the word 'bounded,' leaving the agent to infer their semantics.
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 identifies the action (Get), the resource (players with a Chess.com title), and a key constraint (bounded list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on titled players rather than individual profiles, stats, or game data.
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 intended use is implied: it is the tool for retrieving a list of titled players, not for individual player data. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as not needing a specific player ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting that the response is 'untrusted external data', which conveys reliability and security considerations beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.
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 essential purpose and packs in an important trust caveat. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers what it does and the nature of the data. It doesn't describe the return value format, but the absence of an output schema and the obvious boolean-like result make this acceptable.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any semantic detail about the 'username' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't mention format, case sensitivity, or validation, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 ('Check') and specific resource ('a Chess.com player's public online status'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_profile or get_player_stats. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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 gives a clear context for using the tool (checking online status), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so there is no comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds valuable context beyond that: it warns that 'fields are untrusted external data' which is a security/behavioral note, and 'bounded' implying pagination limits. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.
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, tightly worded sentence that leads with the primary action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only fetch tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the core purpose and key boundary (no PGN, untrusted data). It lacks return format details, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool keep this from being a major gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It only hints at 'monthly' (implying year/month) and 'bounded' (implying limit/offset), but doesn't explain any of the five parameters explicitly. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema-level descriptions.
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 a specific action ('Get a bounded monthly game page') and resource ('monthly game'), and differentiates itself from sibling get_player_games_pgn_by_month by explicitly noting 'without embedded PGN'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool by contrasting with the PGN variant ('without embedded PGN'), suggesting that for PGN games one should use the sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions for other sibling tools like get_player_game_archives.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![chesscom-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arVahedi/chesscom-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arVahedi/chesscom-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chesscom-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arVahedi/chesscom-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arVahedi/chesscom-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/arVahedi/chesscom-mcp'

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