Parse a single standard-chess PGN without Stockfish, returning one-based plies from the supplied starting position.
Parse one standard-chess PGN without Stockfish. Plies are one-based from the supplied starting position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pgn | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| moves | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| headers | Yes | ||
| initial_fen | 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 the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no Stockfish is used and that plies are one-based from the supplied starting position, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how invalid PGN is handled, or any permission requirements.
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 with no wasted wording. The core purpose is front-loaded and the output indexing detail follows immediately.
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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. For a single-parameter parsing tool, it covers the essential purpose, engine exclusion, and ply indexing; only error and format constraints are left implicit.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'pgn' parameter. It adds meaningful constraints by specifying 'one standard-chess PGN' and clarifying ply indexing, but it does not explain accepted PGN variants, headers, comments, or invalid-input behavior.
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 gives a specific verb ('Parse'), a clear resource ('standard-chess PGN'), and a distinguishing constraint ('without Stockfish'). An agent can tell this apart from Stockfish-based evaluation or analysis siblings.
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 Stockfish' implies lightweight parsing rather than engine-backed analysis, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like analyze_game, review_game, or import_study, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.