Lichess MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the action (challenge AI), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, what happens after the challenge is created (does it start immediately?), what the response format is, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic purpose.

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 purpose and lists all configurable aspects. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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?

For a tool that creates game challenges (a write/mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after invocation (e.g., does it return a game ID? does the game start automatically?), authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description should provide more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the parameters (difficulty level, time control, color, variant) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Challenge the Lichess AI (Stockfish) to a chess game') and identifies the resource (Lichess AI/Stockfish). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'lichess_create_challenge' (which appears to be for human opponents) by specifying it's for AI opponents only.

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 about when to use this tool (to play against the Lichess AI with configurable difficulty and game settings). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'lichess_create_challenge' for human opponents, which would be helpful given the sibling tool list.

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