lichess_get_users_statusRetrieve real-time online and streaming status for up to 100 Lichess users in one request using comma-separated usernames.
Get realtime online + streaming status for up to 100 Lichess users in a single call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Comma-separated usernames (max 100), e.g. "thibault,DrDrunkenstein" | |
| 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 the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds that status is 'realtime' and capped at 100 users per call, but says nothing about rate limits, detection granularity, or what 'streaming' status entails. Adequate but not rich.
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 resource, its realtime nature, and the batch limit all appear immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.
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 could say more about what the returned status fields contain (online, playing, streaming flags), which is the tool's core value. Otherwise it is complete for a simple read-only lookup whose safety semantics are carried by annotations.
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%: the ids parameter already documents the comma-separated format with an example, and fields documents key filtering; the 100-user cap is stated there too. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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?
The description states a specific verb (get) and resource (realtime online + streaming status for Lichess users), which is clearly distinct from the profile-oriented lichess_get_user sibling. It also conveys batch scope (up to 100 users). It does not explicitly name or contrast against any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus lichess_get_user or any other sibling, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., rate limits, polling guidance) are given. 'In a single call' hints at batch use but is a performance remark, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.