Guides you through Lichess screens and sign-in so you can accept team join requests and message team members. Use it first to learn the required steps.
How to work in Lichess (accept team join requests and message your team): its screens and the sign-in link. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | What you want done in Lichess, in your words. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns screen guidance and a sign-in link, implying a read-only informational response, but it never says so explicitly, nor does it describe response shape, length, or whether the guide is static. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free 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?
Two short clauses with the key instruction ('Call this first') front-loaded at the end where it reads as a directive. The parenthetical example is useful, though the sentence packs three distinct ideas (screens, sign-in link, first-call) somewhat densely.
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-optional-parameter guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (screens, sign-in link) and when to invoke it, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Missing only a hint about what the caller should do with the returned guidance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'task' parameter is already documented as 'What you want done in Lichess, in your words.' The description adds no syntax, examples, or constraints for it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific resource: a how-to guide covering Lichess screens, sign-in link, and the two named workflows (accepting team join requests, messaging a team). This clearly distinguishes it from the lichess_open/click/type/read action siblings, which operate the UI rather than explain it. It falls short of a 5 only because 'How to work in Lichess' is slightly fuzzy framing for what is essentially a help/orientation tool.
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?
'Call this first' gives explicit sequencing guidance relative to the sibling action tools, which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition (e.g., whether to re-call it once already oriented), so it stops short of full coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.