Skip to main content
Glama
bkoseda

Chess MCP Server

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

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the exact same pattern: get_chess_player_ followed by a specific noun (profile, stats). This is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    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.

    Completeness3/5

    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.

  • 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. Saying 'public' hints that no auth is needed, but it does not describe what happens for invalid usernames, rate limits, or the structure of the response. This is a minimal description with no added 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 that immediately conveys the core action and target. It contains zero waste and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

    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 tool is simple (one parameter), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description alone should convey what information the agent can expect. 'Public profile' hints at content, but lacks specifics such as whether it returns basic details like name, avatar, or join date. This leaves a noticeable gap between the description and the tool's practical use.

    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 includes 'by username', which clarifies that the 'username' parameter is the Chess.com identifier. However, schema coverage is 0% and no further format or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, URL encoding) are specified, so it adds only basic meaning.

    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 verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('public profile for a Chess.com player by username'). It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_chess_player_stats' by focusing on '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 Guidelines2/5

    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 is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the agent receives no decision support beyond the inherent meaning of 'profile' vs 'stats'.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what the tool does, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error responses, or any side effects. For a read operation, this minimal disclosure leaves the agent without important 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 sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

    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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details about what 'stats' includes, and it doesn't address the relationship with the sibling profile tool. More context would improve 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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'username' refers to the Chess.com player's username, which is helpful. However, it doesn't add details like format, case sensitivity, or examples, so it only partially enriches the parameter meaning.

    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 action ('Get') and the resource ('stats for a Chess.com player by username'). It is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_chess_player_profile', so it falls short of a 5.

    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 you need player stats, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'get_chess_player_profile', nor any exclusions. The usage context is only inferred from the description.

    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

mcpchesssampleserver MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcpchesssampleserver 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/bkoseda/mcpchesssampleserver'

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