Lichess MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the action ('Play a chess move') and timing ('during a live game'). It omits critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the move is invalid, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 action and uses two efficient sentences: one for the move mechanics and one for timing. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 incomplete for a mutation tool: it covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return values. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 both parameters (gameId and move). The description adds value by explaining UCI notation with examples (e.g., e7e8q for promotion), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema covers, 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 ('Play a chess move'), resource ('in an active Lichess game'), and method ('using UCI notation'), distinguishing it from siblings like lichess_resign or lichess_offer_draw. It provides concrete examples (e.g., e2e4, e7e8q) that reinforce the purpose.

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 specifies context ('during a live game'), implying when to use it versus alternatives like lichess_abort or lichess_resign. However, it lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., not for completed games) or direct naming of sibling tools for comparison.

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