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 states the action ('Resign and forfeit') and outcome ('Concedes the game'), but lacks details on permissions required, irreversible consequences, or error conditions (e.g., if the game ID is invalid). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second clarifies the outcome. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary details.

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 complexity (a simple mutation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete but has gaps. It covers what the tool does but omits behavioral context like error handling or side effects. For a tool with no structured safety hints, more detail would improve completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'gameId' documented as 'Lichess game ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Resign and forfeit') and resource ('an active Lichess chess game'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lichess_abort' (which ends a game before it starts) and 'lichess_offer_draw' (which proposes a tie). The phrase 'Concedes the game to your opponent' reinforces the outcome, 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 'an active Lichess chess game', suggesting it should be used during ongoing play rather than for challenges or other states. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for completed games) or name alternatives like 'lichess_abort' for unstarted games, leaving some ambiguity.

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