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. It discloses key behavioral traits: blocking nature, 30-second timeout, and return values (board state, UI board, or timeout message). However, it misses details like error handling, permissions needed, or whether this is read-only or mutative, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with game state.

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 with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a constraint, and the third details returns. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter context more clearly.

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 (blocking with timeout), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and returns, but lacks details on errors, side effects, and full parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'game_id' indirectly via context ('opponent to move'), but doesn't explicitly define the parameter's role or format. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, insufficient for the coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Blocks until it is the Agent's turn (or User's turn via Agent proxy).' It specifies the verb ('Blocks'), resource (turn in a game), and includes a time constraint ('Waits up to 30 seconds'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'finishTurn' beyond implying this is about waiting rather than acting.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'opponent to move' and 'Agent's turn,' suggesting it should be used during a game when awaiting a turn. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'finishTurn' or 'createGame,' and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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