Lichess MCP

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: it's a mutation tool (aborting a game), has timing constraints ('first few moves'), and implies it affects game state. However, it lacks details on permissions (e.g., if user must be a player), side effects, or error handling, which are important 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place by specifying timing constraints without redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and limitations in minimal text.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool. It covers the what and when, but lacks details on permissions, return values, or error cases. For a tool that modifies game state, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the 'gameId' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'abort' and the resource 'an active Lichess chess game', specifying it only works 'before it has started properly' and 'in the first few moves'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'lichess_resign' (ending a game in progress) and 'lichess_cancel_challenge' (canceling a challenge before a game starts).

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 clear context on when to use it ('before it has started properly' and 'in the first few moves'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for aborting games you created or any game, or contrast with 'lichess_resign' for later stages.

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