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 mentions 'stream' and 'real-time updates', implying a continuous or event-driven operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a long-running connection, how updates are delivered (e.g., push vs. poll), error handling, or rate limits. For a streaming tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional details. Every phrase adds value (e.g., specifying 'live board state, moves, and game events' and 'real-time updates including position, clocks, and chat'), with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity of a streaming tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and some outputs but lacks details on behavior (e.g., streaming mechanism, duration), error cases, or return format. This is adequate as a minimum but leaves clear gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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% for the single parameter 'gameId', so the schema already documents it fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, but with 0 parameters needing extra explanation (since coverage is complete), a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 verb ('stream') and resource ('live board state, moves, and game events for an ongoing Lichess chess game'), with specific details like 'real-time updates including position, clocks, and chat'. It distinguishes from siblings like lichess_stream_events (which likely streams user events) and lichess_get_ongoing_games (which lists games rather than streaming one).

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 for 'ongoing Lichess chess game', suggesting it's not for completed games, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like lichess_get_ongoing_games or lichess_stream_events. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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