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 mentions what data is returned ('game history including moves, result, opponent, time control, and opening') but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are critical for a tool fetching user-specific data from an external API.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding filtering details. Every sentence earns its place 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic filtering but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or return format specifics, which are important for a tool interacting with an external service like Lichess.

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 fully. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'color (white/black) or rated/casual', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantics beyond it, meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Fetch your recent chess games from Lichess') and resource ('chess games'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lichess_get_my_profile' or 'lichess_get_ongoing_games' by focusing on historical games rather than profile data, current games, or other resources.

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 for when to use this tool ('Fetch your recent chess games') and implies usage by mentioning filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'lichess_get_ongoing_games' for current games instead of historical ones.

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