Lichess MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool does but lacks behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational constraints.

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 ('Get the Lichess leaderboard') and adds essential context ('top players by rating for a specific time control'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, or error handling. For a simple read operation with full parameter documentation in the schema, it's minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing missing operational context.

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 fully documents both parameters (nb and perfType) with descriptions, constraints, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Lichess leaderboard — top players by rating') with specific scope ('for a specific time control'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'lichess_get_user' or 'lichess_get_rating_history' by focusing on leaderboard rankings rather than individual user data or historical trends.

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 when needing top players by rating for a time control, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lichess_get_user' for individual stats or 'lichess_get_crosstable' for head-to-head comparisons. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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