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 submitting a move and claiming wins, but fails to cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid moves), side effects (e.g., game state changes), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter explanations in a bulleted list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like error cases or side effects, which are crucial for safe invocation despite the output schema handling return values.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'move' uses UCI format with an example (e.g., e2e4) and clarifies 'claim_win' as for claiming checkmate/win. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could detail 'game_id' more.

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 ('Submits a move') and resource ('to the game server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createGame' or 'waitForNextTurn' beyond the implied context of submitting moves versus creating games or waiting.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., whether it's used during an active game turn) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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