chesscom_get_player_archivesRetrieve YYYY/MM archive URLs containing a Chess.com player's monthly game history by username.
List the YYYY/MM archive URLs containing a player's monthly game history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| username | Yes | Chess.com username |
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"
+}v1.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description contributes the return shape (a list of archive URLs at monthly granularity), which is genuinely useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about volume, auth, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key output format qualifier (YYYY/MM) arrives early. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter list tool, though it does not use its brevity to add any usage routing.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey enough about the return to be actionable, and it does identify that the result is archive URLs in YYYY/MM form. However, it omits how those URLs are meant to be consumed and offers no guidance on the unused-adjacent 'fields' parameter, leaving it minimally viable rather than complete.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description implies the username parameter ('a player's') but adds no detail on the 'fields' parameter or the format/semantics of the YYYY/MM values supplied.
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 (List) and resource (archive URLs) scoped to a player's monthly game history, including the URL format YYYY/MM. It is clearly distinguishable from chesscom_get_player or chesscom_get_player_stats, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., use this before fetching monthly game data, versus get_player for the profile). Usage can only be inferred from what the tool returns, which is the same gap seen in the mid-tier calibration example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.