Analyze a batch of chess positions from FEN strings using a warm Stockfish engine, with scores reported from White's perspective.
Analyze a batch of FEN requests through one warm Stockfish process. All scores use White's perspective.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| positions | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Through one warm Stockfish process' implies batch efficiency and shared process state but the description does not disclose cost/rate implications, whether results are deterministic given fixed nodes, ordering guarantees, or failure behavior per position. The White's-perspective score convention is a useful addition.
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 compact sentences with no waste, front-loading the batch-over-warm-process behavior and the score convention.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the 0% param coverage and absence of annotations leave the agent without needed context on array shape, nodes/multipv semantics, or how this batch tool compares to the many sibling analysis endpoints.
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 compensate. It mentions 'FEN requests' generically but does not explain the 'positions' array structure or the per-item nodes/multipv fields (and defaults) that actually control analysis depth and multi-line output. The White-perspective note maps to output meaning rather than parameters.
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 (analyze FEN requests) and notes the batch/warm-process implementation. However, with many sibling analysis tools (analyze_position, evaluate_position, start_analysis_job, analyze_game, start_progressive_analysis), the description gives no differentiation of when this batch tool is preferred over those.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'batch through one warm Stockfish process' hints at a multi-position efficiency use case, but the agent is not told to prefer this over single-position siblings or job-based tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.