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 the tool fetches a 'next recommended' puzzle based on user data, which implies it's a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no puzzle is available. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 your next recommended Lichess chess puzzle') and adds qualifying details ('based on your puzzle rating and history'). There is no wasted verbiage or 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, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., puzzle format, error cases) or behavioral aspects like auth needs, which are important for a tool relying on user-specific data. The description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 adds context about the recommendation being based on 'puzzle rating and history', which provides semantic insight beyond the empty schema, though this is minimal. Baseline for 0 params is 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'next recommended Lichess chess puzzle', specifying it's based on puzzle rating and history. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lichess_get_daily_puzzle' (general daily puzzle) and 'lichess_get_puzzle' (specific puzzle by ID) by focusing on personalized recommendations, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 ('based on your puzzle rating and history') suggesting it's for personalized recommendations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'lichess_get_daily_puzzle' or 'lichess_get_puzzle'. 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.