Lichess MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's function and output format ('Lists all games... including board position and whose turn it is'), but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more comprehensive given the absence of structured metadata.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential output details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete—it explains what the tool does and what information it returns. However, it could improve by mentioning authentication needs or rate limits, which are relevant for API tools. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's details on return values.

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 appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score. It adds value by explaining what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 ('Get your currently active or in-progress chess games') and resource ('on Lichess'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lichess_get_my_games' (which likely retrieves completed games) and 'lichess_stream_game' (which streams a specific game). It precisely defines scope with 'currently active or in-progress' and includes details like board position and turn information.

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 ('Get your currently active or in-progress chess games'), implying it's for real-time game status rather than historical data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'lichess_get_my_games' for past games), which prevents a perfect score.

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