llm-chess-mcp

Query Lichess Opening Explorer

opening_explorer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query real human game statistics from Lichess for the current position to analyze opening trends and make informed move decisions.

Instructions

Query the Lichess opening explorer for real human game statistics in the current position (requires LICHESS_TOKEN).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "game_id": "<game_id>"
    },
    "name": "opening_explorer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`db`	No	lichess
`speeds`	No
`game_id`	Yes
`ratings`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`db`	Yes
`black`	Yes
`draws`	Yes
`moves`	Yes
`white`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`opening`	Yes
`revision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already indicate a safe read-only operation. Description adds environment requirement: the question requires a token. Does not mention permissions, read-only side effects, or returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short description of one sentence with no unnecessary details. However, the output or result not mentioned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite output schema(true), annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), the description doesn't mention what the tool returns (opening list/names/counts), so the agent may not know if it can fulfill the request. the description is too sparse for interactive decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Description gives no parameter semantics. The input schema covers params and types but does not explain the source or valid values. There are 4 parameters and he documentation does not cover the specific role of `db`, `speeds`, `ratings`, or `game_id`. Coverage is 0% and the description doesn't compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Query') with the Lichess opening explorer and the current position context. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools other than by name and implicit use case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like position_move or game_analysis. The only guidance meaning implied: 'current position' and 'requires a token'. Not enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server