Lichess MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action is for 'active' games, hinting at a precondition, but lacks details on permissions (e.g., if user must be a player/spectator), rate limits, response behavior, or error cases. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized 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, no output schema, and a mutation tool (sending chat implies write operation), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, errors), output expectations, and usage context, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 fully documents parameters (gameId, text, room with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'active' game context, which slightly clarifies gameId usage but doesn't compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('send a chat message') and target ('in an active Lichess chess game'), specifying both the recipient scope ('to the player or spectator chat room'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'lichess_make_move' or 'lichess_offer_draw' by focusing on communication, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-existent chat-related siblings.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage during an active game but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like authentication or game state). No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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