Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Chess MCP Server make a move for me as white: e4"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
To run the MCP server using the provided configuration, follow these steps:
Install prerequisites
Ensure you have uvx installed on your system.
Clone and start the server
The configuration below will start the MCP server from a GitHub repository using uvx.
The command pulls the server code and launches the mcp-server entry point.
{
"mcpServers": {
"GithubHostedExample": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"--from",
"git+https://github.com/bkoseda/mcpchesssampleserver.git",
"chess"
]
}
}
}Run the server
Execute the following command in your terminal:
uvx --from git+https://github.com/bkoseda/mcpserverexample.git mcp-serverThis will download the MCP server from the specified GitHub repository and start it locally.
Refer to the repository's documentation for additional configuration or usage details.
Get the public profile for a Chess.com player by username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'public' implies read-only access and no authentication, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or response shape, so transparency is only minimal.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is adequate for invocation. However, with no output schema or sibling guidance, an agent would not know what the profile contains or why to choose this over get_chess_player_stats, leaving notable gaps.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter, 'username', is documented only by its name and type. The description's phrase 'by username' confirms the parameter's role but adds no format, validation, or additional meaning beyond what the schema already shows.
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 the exact resource ('public profile for a Chess.com player') with the lookup mechanism ('by username'). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_chess_player_stats beyond the resource type itself.
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 about when to use this tool versus get_chess_player_stats. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative scenarios mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the stats for a Chess.com player by username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
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 only says 'get' which implies a read operation, but it gives no detail about required authentication, rate limits, response behavior, or any side effects. This is thin for a remote API tool.
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 economical sentence, with the key action and resource front-loaded. There is no unnecessary repetition or padding.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum needed to understand the core call. However, it lacks any context about what 'stats' include, whether there are any prerequisites, or how this differs from the sibling tool, leaving some gaps for a fully informed decision.
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 confirms that the single parameter 'username' is the player's Chess.com username, adding a small amount of meaning beyond the schema's bare property title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not elaborate on expected format, case sensitivity, or potential validation, so the added value is limited.
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 states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('stats'), and scope ('by username'), making the function clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling tool get_chess_player_profile because 'stats' and 'profile' are different resources, though the sibling is not explicitly referenced.
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 given on when to use this tool versus get_chess_player_profile, and there are no exclusions or alternative routing. The only usage cue is the implicit difference between 'stats' and 'profile', which is left for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0get_chess_player_profileget_chess_player_statsScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a player's public profile, the other retrieves their stats. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow the exact same pattern: get_chess_player_ followed by a specific noun (profile, stats). This is consistent and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels thin. While they cover a focused player-info domain, the broader chess context suggests more tools could be expected, making the count borderline.
The tools cover the main player profile and stats endpoints, but the server is named 'Chess MCP Server,' implying a wider scope. Missing tools for games, tournaments, or other chess data create notable gaps.
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
Manage Superlist tasks and lists in plain language from any MCP-compatible AI agent.
Chat with your Zihin.ai agents, list them and load platform skills from any MCP client.
Official remote MCP server for Archivist AI TTRPG campaign memory: characters, sessions, and more.