lichess_get_teamRetrieve a Lichess team's description, member count, leader, and open/closed status by team ID. Use it to check team details and status before joining or managing a team.
Get information about a Lichess team: description, member count, leader, open/closed status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| team_id | Yes | Team id (URL slug, e.g. "lichess-swiss") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the returned field set, which is mild extra value, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the team id is unknown.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the concrete return contents. No filler, no redundancy.
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, read-only, single-required-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient — and by listing the returned fields it partially compensates for the absent output schema. Only error/not-found behavior is left unspecified.
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 both team_id (URL slug example) and fields (comma-separated key filter) are already documented in the schema. The description names no parameters and adds no syntax or guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when 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 verb (Get) and resource (Lichess team) and enumerates the payload contents: description, member count, leader, open/closed status. It is unambiguous within the lichess_* family, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent lookup tools such as lichess_get_user or sportsdb_get_team_details.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose — call it when you need a team's profile — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for team-like lookups in the broader sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.