lichess_get_broadcastsFetch official Lichess broadcast tournaments for live over-the-board chess coverage, returning recent events with optional field filtering and a configurable limit.
List official Lichess broadcast tournaments (live coverage of OTB events). Returns up to ~20 most recent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max broadcasts to return (1-50, default 20) | |
| 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"
+}v1.3.0Input 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 is covered. The description adds ordering context ("most recent") that the annotations lack, but the "~20" figure is vague and sits awkwardly beside a schema that permits max=50, which could mislead an agent about the effective cap.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope. No wasted words; every clause carries information.
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 read-only list endpoint, the description plus annotations and a fully documented schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it, and the recency/volume note is useful. Minor gaps remain around what a broadcast record contains and whether the list can be filtered, but no output schema is expected here.
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 both parameters (max, fields) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or interpretation detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 and resource ("List official Lichess broadcast tournaments") and clarifies the resource with "live coverage of OTB events", which separates it from the arena-focused lichess_get_tournaments sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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 parenthetical scope hint implies this is the tool for OTB broadcast coverage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion criteria, and no pointer to lichess_get_tournaments or lichess_get_daily_puzzle as alternatives. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.