chesscom_get_leaderboardsFetch Chess.com global leaderboards for daily, daily960, live rapid, blitz, bullet, tactics, rush, and battle. Use comma-separated fields to select returned data.
Get Chess.com global leaderboards across all categories (daily, daily960, live_rapid, live_blitz, live_bullet, tactics, rush, battle).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already specify readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the scope of 'global leaderboards across all categories' and enumerates categories, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, pagination, or return behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the category list adds useful scope without waste.
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?
For a simple read-only leaderboard fetch with one optional schema-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could say more about the return shape since no output schema exists, but it is sufficient for correct 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Chess.com global leaderboards'), plus scope ('across all categories') and an explicit category list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like player stats, clubs, or country players.
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 only states what the tool does; it gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No alternative is named, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.