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 describes a read-only listing operation but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 clarifying detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by specifying scope and context without any redundant or verbose language.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details like response format or limitations, which are important for a read operation in a gaming context with potential rate constraints.

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 information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not introducing unnecessary details.

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 ('List') and resource ('your incoming and outgoing chess challenges on Lichess'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lichess_accept_challenge' or 'lichess_create_challenge' which perform different operations on challenges. It explicitly mentions both 'pending game invites you have received or sent,' which clarifies the scope beyond just one direction.

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 'your incoming and outgoing chess challenges,' indicating it's for viewing personal challenge statuses. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lichess_get_my_games' for ongoing games or provide exclusions, such as not being for modifying challenges.

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