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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and outcome but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after acceptance (e.g., game state changes). For a mutation 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 directly convey the tool's purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 performs a mutation (accepting a challenge) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'challengeId' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Accept') and resource ('incoming chess challenge on Lichess'), with a specific outcome ('Start the game with the challenger'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'decline_challenge' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other challenge-related tools like 'cancel_challenge' or 'create_challenge'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an incoming challenge), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'decline_challenge' or 'list_challenges' for context.

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