Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chess MCP Server

Chess MCP Server

by bkoseda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_chess_player_stats

Retrieve Chess.com player statistics by username. Access ratings, win/loss records, and performance metrics to analyze player strength.

Instructions

Get the stats for a Chess.com player by username.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "get_chess_player_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools