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. It discloses the return content ('board position, moves, theme, and difficulty rating'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens with an invalid ID), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 is moderately complete: it covers the purpose and return values but lacks error handling, authentication, or rate limit details. For a simple read operation with one parameter, it's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency that could hinder agent usage.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Puzzle ID'. The description adds value by specifying that it's for 'a specific Lichess chess puzzle', providing context beyond the schema's technical definition. With only one parameter, the baseline is high, and this extra semantic detail compensates well.

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 a specific Lichess chess puzzle by ID') and resource ('puzzle'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lichess_get_daily_puzzle' (which fetches a daily puzzle) and 'lichess_get_next_puzzle' (which likely fetches a random or next puzzle). It explicitly mentions the ID requirement, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by specifying 'by ID', suggesting it should be used when a puzzle ID is known, unlike 'lichess_get_daily_puzzle' which doesn't require an ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as clarifying that 'lichess_get_next_puzzle' is for random puzzles without an ID.

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