Inspect a chess position's legal state, material, pins, attacks, and pawn structures without an engine. Get clear explanations of key tactical and structural elements.
Inspect legal state, material, pins, attacks, and pawn structures without an engine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fen | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 the full behavioral burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (no engine used), but says nothing about whether this is read-only, what computational cost to expect, or what form the inspection output takes. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and enumerating the covered aspects. No filler.
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 needn't be explained, and one obvious parameter keeps the input side simple. But with no annotations and a crowded sibling cluster, the description should say more about when this engine-free inspection is preferable and how it differs from the many neighboring position-analysis tools.
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?
Only one parameter (fen) exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — but the parameter name 'fen' is self-explanatory to a chess-domain agent and the description correctly frames the input as a position to inspect. Baseline for a single obvious parameter with an output schema present is 4.
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 clear verb (inspect) and enumerates specific aspects (legal state, material, pins, attacks, pawn structures), which is more specific than a generic 'analyze position'. However, it doesn't differentiate from close siblings like inspect_position, analyze_position, or analyze_pawn_structure, which likely overlap significantly.
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 phrase 'without an engine' implies a when-to-use condition (engine-free inspection vs engine-based evaluation), but this is oblique. There are many siblings in the analysis cluster (evaluate_position, analyze_position, inspect_position) and the description doesn't explicitly state when to choose this one over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.