Lichess MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's purpose and output ('return account info'), but does not specify what 'account info' includes, whether it requires prior authentication, or any rate limits or error conditions. This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool that interacts with authentication status.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word 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 moderate complexity (authentication status check), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on what 'account info' includes, potential error responses, or prerequisites. It covers purpose and usage well but falls short on full behavioral context needed for robust agent interaction.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 specific action ('Check if you are authenticated') and resource ('Lichess'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lichess_auth_start' (which initiates authentication) and 'lichess_get_my_profile' (which retrieves profile details). It explicitly mentions returning 'account info' to verify login status and confirm the connected account.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to verify login status or confirm which Lichess chess account is connected.' This provides clear context for its purpose, distinguishing it from other authentication-related tools like 'lichess_auth_start' (for starting authentication) and profile tools like 'lichess_get_my_profile' (for detailed profile data).

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