Downloads a chess.com player's recent standard games into the local cache, skipping already-cached games and returning counts to support safe repeated syncs.
Download a chess.com player's recent games into the local cache.
Only standard chess is stored. Already-cached games are skipped, so it is safe to call repeatedly. Returns counts, not the games themselves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | No | ||
| username | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses idempotency (cached games skipped), a data filter (standard chess only), the side effect (writes to local cache), and the response shape (counts, not games). It omits failure behavior and any rate-limit/API-auth considerations, which is what keeps it from a 5.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then return shape. Nothing is redundant and every sentence adds information the agent needs.
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 two-parameter write-to-cache tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, side effect, idempotency, filtering, and return type. The notable gap is the unexplained `months` window and any error/partial-failure behavior.
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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It says "recent games" but never mentions the `months` parameter that defines that window (default 3), leaving the most consequential parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 (download a player's recent games) plus a target (local cache) and a scope constraint (standard chess only). This clearly separates it from read tools like list_games and get_game, which the closing sentence implicitly contrasts with.
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?
"Already-cached games are skipped, so it is safe to call repeatedly" implies this is a cache-priming step safe to run before analysis, and "returns counts, not the games themselves" hints that reading games requires another tool. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.