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 states the action ('cancel') but doesn't mention permissions required (e.g., if you must be the sender), whether the cancellation is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications to the opponent), or error conditions (e.g., invalid challenge ID).

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('cancel an outgoing chess challenge') without any unnecessary words. It directly communicates the purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies state, more context would be helpful for safe and correct usage.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'challengeId' documented as 'Challenge ID to cancel.' The description doesn't add extra semantic details about the parameter (e.g., format or source), but with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. Since there's only one parameter, the description's clarity on the tool's purpose indirectly supports parameter understanding, warranting a score of 4.

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 ('cancel'), target resource ('outgoing chess challenge'), and scope ('you sent on Lichess'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'lichess_decline_challenge' (which declines incoming challenges) and 'lichess_abort' (which aborts ongoing games).

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 specifying 'outgoing chess challenge you sent,' which suggests it's for challenges initiated by the user. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'lichess_decline_challenge' for incoming challenges) or list any prerequisites or exclusions.

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