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 mentions the action ('Request, accept, or decline a takeback') but does not describe key behaviors such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's rate-limited, what happens if the game is not active, or the response format. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Request, accept, or decline a takeback') and includes essential context ('undo last move' and 'in an active Lichess chess game'). Every part earns its place with no wasted words, 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, side effects), usage prerequisites, and return values. While the purpose is clear, the overall context for safe and effective use by an AI agent is insufficient.

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 accept). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the semantics of 'accept' (e.g., that true can mean either request or accept depending on context) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Request, accept, or decline a takeback') and resource ('in an active Lichess chess game'), with 'undo last move' providing additional context. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like lichess_make_move (which makes moves) and lichess_offer_draw (which handles draws), as takebacks are a distinct game interaction.

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 ('in an active Lichess chess game') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if takebacks are only available in certain game modes or time controls, or how it relates to tools like lichess_abort or lichess_resign for ending games. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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