Chess MCP Server

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 mentions that the tool 'Returns the Game ID and instructions,' which adds some context about output, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a mutating operation (likely yes, as it creates a game), any side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential output information, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with nested parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details, though the output schema may mitigate some completeness issues. For a creation tool with no annotations, it should do more to explain mutations and usage context.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about the 'config' parameter or its nested properties (type, color, showUi, difficulty), leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the raw schema structure. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Initializes') and resource ('new chess game session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'finishTurn' and 'waitForNextTurn' by being the entry point for game creation. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes it from potential alternatives in other contexts (like 'startGame' or 'newGame'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It doesn't mention if this should be called before other tools like 'finishTurn' or under what conditions (e.g., only when no active game exists). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.