chesscom-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation3/5
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as get_player_to_move_daily_games and get_player_current_daily_games, where one is a subset of the other. Similarly, get_player_games and get_player_monthly_pgn both retrieve monthly games, differing only in format. Descriptions help clarify, but the surface could cause an agent to misselect between these pairs.
Naming Consistency4/5All tools follow a consistent get_<resource>_<attribute> pattern, making the naming largely predictable. Minor deviations like get_player_to_move_daily_games versus get_player_current_daily_games and get_daily_puzzle versus get_random_puzzle introduce slight inconsistency, but no chaotic mixing of styles.
Tool Count2/5With 29 tools, this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a heavy count. The set includes many granular variations (e.g., team match, live team match, and board variants) that could be consolidated, and some obvious redundancies like get_player_games versus get_player_monthly_pgn. The count feels excessive for the scope of read-only Chess.com data retrieval.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers a broad range of Chess.com read-only endpoints, including players, clubs, countries, tournaments, matches, puzzles, streamers, and leaderboards. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct head-to-head comparison tool, but for the apparent purpose of retrieving data, the coverage is nearly comprehensive.
Average 3.5/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'List[s]' players, with no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, or the output format. This is a minimal disclosure that does not go beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list of usernames, player profiles). It does not do this. The tool is simple, but the description is too terse to be fully complete, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure and any additional behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for the single parameter 'countryCode' has 100% coverage, providing the pattern and description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters. No enhancement or compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List Chess.com players associated with a country.' The verb 'List' and resource 'players' are specific, and the scope 'associated with a country' distinguishes it from siblings like get_country_clubs (clubs) and get_country (country info). However, it does not explicitly mention the input parameter or differentiate itself beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for listing players by country, nor does it exclude other tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get details,' implying a read operation. It does not mention output format, authentication needs, rate limits, or the scope of 'details' (e.g., whether it includes rounds). This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place and is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'details' means. It does not specify the structure or extent of the returned data, nor does it clarify that rounds are handled by separate tools, leaving the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a full description for the tournamentId parameter ('Tournament URL ID'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get details') and resource ('a Chess.com tournament'), making it easy to understand. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_tournament_round, but the term 'tournament' versus 'round' provides enough differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tournament_round or get_player_tournaments. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must communicate behavioral traits itself. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens for invalid match IDs, whether only live matches are accessible, or any authentication/rate-limit implications). This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating what the tool does, making it concise and well-structured for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient but still leaves gaps. It does not clarify what 'details' includes, nor how this tool differs from sibling tools like get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board, which the agent may need to know to select it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (matchId) is fully described in the input schema with type, description, and exclusivity constraint. Schema description coverage is 100%, so per the rubric the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond identifying matchId in the tool's context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('details and players for a Chess.com Live team match'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools at a basic level via 'Live team match', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where a sibling tool such as get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get details,' which is implicit for a read operation but adds no information about authentication, rate limits, or response structure. There is no contradiction, but the description is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It communicates the tool's purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as what details are returned and any usage guidance. The lack of output schema means the description should elaborate on the response, but it does not, leaving a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all three parameters (tournamentId, round, group) with individual descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but no more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details for a group within a tournament round, using the verb 'get' and identifying the resource. It is more specific than the sibling get_tournament_round, which likely operates at the round level. However, 'details' is broad and doesn't enumerate what is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tournament_round or get_tournament. The description simply states what the tool does without mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing response format, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only action, but this is already evident from the tool name and adds no behavioral context beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundant or tangential information. It effectively communicates the core purpose without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too terse to fully inform the agent about what 'details and players' includes, such as player ratings, match status, or board results. It also fails to explain how this tool relates to sibling match tools, leaving the agent without enough context to select correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'matchId,' so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by indicating the match is a 'Daily team match,' but it does not materially enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema's 'Team match ID'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details and players for a Chess.com Daily team match, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details and players for a Chess.com Daily team match'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Daily' and emphasizing 'players,' which is not explicitly covered by board-level or live-match tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings, such as get_live_team_match or get_team_match_board. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions like whether the match must be completed or ongoing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get details' without indicating what details are returned, any side effects (though likely read-only), or other behavioral traits. The term 'details' is vague and provides minimal transparency beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'details' includes (e.g., games, players, results). Given the simplicity of parameters, the description is still too vague to be fully actionable. It lacks information about the return value or any special constraints, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (tournamentId and round) already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details for a round in a Chess.com tournament'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tournament (tournament-level info) and get_tournament_round_group (round groups) by specifying 'round'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tournament or get_tournament_round_group. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without explaining the response format, any limitations, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal and does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the literal meaning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not describe the response structure or enumerate the supported game types. It is vague about 'supported game types and activities' and provides no details about the leaderboard categories or format, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and needs no documentation. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description is not required to add parameter details, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'leaderboards', and it is the only leaderboard tool among siblings, distinguishing it from alternatives. However, 'supported game types and activities' is vague and could be more specific about which types are included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when leaderboards are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since no other sibling provides leaderboards, the context makes the usage clear, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no additional context is given about errors, rate limits, or data format. It is not misleading but is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose. However, the absence of an output schema or annotations means the description could offer more detail about the response structure or potential limitations. It is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('board' and 'matchId') having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-related meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (games and scores for a board in a Chess.com Live team match). It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_team_match_board, relying on the word 'Live' for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_team_match_board or get_live_team_match. The description does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It states the resource type but does not disclose what 'current' means (ongoing games vs. a specific time frame), whether authentication is required, error behavior, or the response structure. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It delivers the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify what 'current' includes and what the return values look like. It does not, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'username' described as 'Chess.com username'. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema, which already fully documents the single parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'a Chess.com player's current Daily Chess games'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_player_games and get_player_to_move_daily_games by specifying 'current Daily Chess' rather than all games or to-move games.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the distinction from get_player_to_move_daily_games or when archived games are more appropriate. The implied usage is weak and relies entirely on the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behaviors itself, but it only states the basic action. It omits any mention of response format, error handling, rate limits, or the read-only public nature of the operation, offering little beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource without any extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so a minimal description can be sufficient. However, it lacks any hint about the returned profile structure or edge cases, leaving the agent to guess about the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the username parameter (pattern, length, description), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'Chess.com player's public profile', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like player stats, games, or archives. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_player_stats, get_player_games). The description provides no context for selection or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the meaning of 'current', and essentially rephrases the tool name without adding behavioral context or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a simple read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate but does not explain the return format (e.g., list of game objects) or edge cases like empty results, though the low complexity partially mitigates this gap. It is minimally viable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (username) with a clear description 'Chess.com username'. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Daily Chess games' and a precise filter 'where it is the player's turn', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player_current_daily_games. This is a specific verb+resource+scope construction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_player_current_daily_games or get_player_games. It simply states what it does without contextual cues or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it gets a profile, implying read-only but not explicitly stating safety, rate limits, error handling, or return format. Significant behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the action and resource. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple country profile lookup with one well-described parameter, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not explain profile contents or error cases, leaving some gaps, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter countryCode with pattern and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description also mentions 'by ISO country code', reinforcing the parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a Chess.com country profile by ISO country code', specifying the verb, resource, and method of identification. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_country_clubs and get_country_players by focusing on the profile itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_country_clubs or get_country_players, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'List' and does not mention output format, pagination, sorting, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the simple tool it describes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete. However, since there is no output schema, it could have specified the return format (e.g., array of player objects) to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers the 'title' parameter with an enum and a description. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('Chess.com players holding a specified chess title'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player_profile or get_country_players.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the function without any context, exclusions, or mention of similar tools such as get_leaderboards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets a public profile, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the club does not exist. This is a minimal disclosure for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what the profile contains or how to handle errors, and it lacks differentiation from similar club-related tools, but the low complexity reduces the burden on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the clubId parameter is already described as 'Club URL ID' in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a Chess.com club's public profile'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club_members and get_club_matches, which target different aspects of a club.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving a club's profile, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_club_members or get_club_matches. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the simple purpose makes the usage somewhat self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the endpoint is 'unofficial' and 'unstable', which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explain possible failure modes, response behavior, or rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences, with the first stating purpose and the second providing a crucial caveat. No fluff or repetitive content; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description gives the core purpose and an important stability warning. However, without an output schema, it does not explain the structure of 'live game data' or the generated PGN, nor does it address error handling. Adequate but with notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the gameId parameter already described as a 'Numeric Chess.com live game ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'live game data and generated PGN', with the name 'get_game_by_id' making the resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling list-oriented tools like get_player_games by focusing on a single live game, but the description itself does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: it is for live game data and warns to use it sparingly due to instability. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclude certain cases (e.g., archived games), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing details such as return format, pagination, error behavior, or any access constraints. For a list operation, this lack of transparency leaves uncertainty about the output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description could suffice but is minimal. It does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., club names, IDs, URLs) or any limitations (e.g., only public clubs). Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the 'username' parameter as a Chess.com username, so the description adds little beyond the context that it represents a player. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing the Chess.com clubs a player belongs to. The verb 'List' plus the resource 'clubs' with the player context makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club or get_country_clubs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the name and description: when you need a player's clubs. However, there is no mention of alternatives like get_club for club details or get_country_clubs for clubs in a country, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates the core behavior (download all games in a month) and output format, which is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like empty months, large response sizes, or exact PGN formatting details, leaving some transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is both informative and succinct. It avoids fluff and directly states the tool's purpose and output format, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple download tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what is downloaded, for whom, and the format. It omits edge-case handling but is otherwise sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (username, year, month). The tool description adds no additional semantic information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Download'), the resource ('all of a Chess.com player's games for a month'), and the output format ('PGN text'). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_player_games or get_player_archives, even without explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. Users must infer from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a random puzzle, but does not describe the return format, potential side effects, or any operational constraints. This is a minimal disclosure that does not go beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any waste. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description is arguably complete for such a simple getter: it clearly states what the tool returns (a random daily puzzle). The absence of details about the response structure is a minor gap, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. According to the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4, and the description does not need to clarify parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a random Chess.com daily puzzle,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_daily_puzzle. The inclusion of 'random' differentiates this tool from the standard daily puzzle getter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_daily_puzzle or explain scenarios where a random puzzle is preferred over the daily puzzle, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope of matches (registered, active, finished) but does not mention authentication, response format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is useful context but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the exact scope of the tool efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what is listed but, with no output schema and no annotations, it fails to describe the return structure or any limitations (e.g., pagination). Adequate for a simple list tool but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clubId described as 'Club URL ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List a Chess.com club's registered, active, and finished matches' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_player_matches and get_team_match by focusing on club matches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_team_match or get_player_matches. The purpose is implied by the resource, but no exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, and 'all finished' clarifies that ongoing games are excluded. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, response format, or any other behavioral traits that might affect invocation or result handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words, perfectly easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters well, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out return shape and potential edge cases (e.g., empty results, list of game objects vs PGN). It is adequate but not complete enough to fully prepare the agent for parsing or handling responses.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented with types, ranges, and descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond restating that the month and player are the scope. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly defines the resource ('all finished Chess.com games for a player in a specific month'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_player_current_daily_games (daily games) and get_player_monthly_pgn (PGN format) by focusing on finished monthly games.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you need a player's finished games for a month) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance or reference to sibling tools, leaving the choice among similar tools to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose additional traits such as pagination, sorting, or response format. It is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description is largely sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the structure of the returned data (e.g., club IDs, URLs, or names). Given the low complexity, the gap is minor, so 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter countryCode, which already includes a pattern and description ('Two-letter ISO 3166 country code'). The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Chess.com clubs associated with a country, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clubs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_country_players (players) and get_club (a single club), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's purpose implies when to use it (when you need clubs for a country), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_country_players or get_country. There are no exclusions or compared scenarios, leaving usage partly inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes a read-only listing operation with no destructive side effects, which is reassuring. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., a list of archive URLs) or any edge cases like players with no game history. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a clear verb and object, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero wasted information; it is as concise as possible while remaining informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately communicates its purpose. However, since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the return value (e.g., list of monthly archive URLs) would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single parameter 'username' with a pattern and description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'monthly game archives available for a Chess.com player.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_games (which retrieves actual game data) and get_player_monthly_pgn (which downloads a PGN file).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it does not say to use this tool first to obtain archive URLs before calling get_player_games or get_player_monthly_pgn. Usage is implied from the context but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is real-time. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get a Chess.com player's ratings and win/loss statistics.' It is concise and contains no unnecessary words, earning the highest score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool retrieves (ratings and win/loss stats). However, it does not elaborate on the exact structure of the return value or any caveats (e.g., historical vs. live data), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a complete description of the single parameter (username with pattern and description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'Get a Chess.com player's ratings and win/loss statistics.' This specifies a verb ('Get') and a specific resource (player's ratings and win/loss stats), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player_profile (profile info) and get_player_games (game history).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving ratings and win/loss statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance comparing it to sibling tools like get_player_profile or get_player_games.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists tournaments in three states (registered, active, finished), which is useful. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely states the action, resource, and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not indicate what information is returned (e.g., tournament names, URLs, dates). This leaves a moderate gap for an agent trying to understand the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete coverage of the only parameter (username) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it merits the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'a Chess.com player's tournaments' and further specifies the scope ('registered, active, and finished'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tournament, which targets a single tournament.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: it is for listing a player's tournaments. There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide an agent, especially given the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the grouping behavior but does not clarify what 'activity' means, whether pagination is involved, or if authentication is required. This is adequate for a simple read-only list but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler or repeated information. It is maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the primary behavior. It could mention return format or pagination, but the simplicity of the tool lowers the need. The 'grouped by activity' detail adds useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description ('Club URL ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies a distinct resource (a Chess.com club's members) with a clear differentiator 'grouped by activity'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club and get_club_matches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to list a club's members), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The resource scope makes the intended usage obvious among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does 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 adds useful context by specifying the match statuses (registered, active, finished), but it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the list is paginated. For a simple read-only list tool, the status detail is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It directly states the action and the object. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and scope. It doesn't explain return value structure or ordering, but that is often unnecessary for a simple list endpoint. Slight gap remains due to lack of any fallback/error behavior mention, but it's complete enough for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% (the username parameter is described as 'Chess.com username'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the outcome: 'List a Chess.com player's registered, active, and finished team matches.' The verb 'List' plus the resource (player's team matches) is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_match (which likely fetches a single match) and get_player_games (which likely covers all games).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: use whenever you need a player's team match list, including various statuses. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the phrasing and sibling names make the appropriate scenario clear. Lack of explicit 'use instead of X' keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only list ('List') and that profiles are 'public', implying no auth needed. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or the response structure, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous content. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list tool, the description adequately conveys the scope ('streamers and their public streaming profiles'). Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, no additional context seems necessary, though mentioning whether it returns live vs. listed streamers would be a minor enhancement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('Chess.com streamers') and the scope ('public streaming profiles'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on players, clubs, tournaments, or games, none of which overlap with streamers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving streamer information but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Since no sibling tool handles streamers, the intended use case is evident, but the description does not state exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and specifies the data returned (games and scores), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, authentication needs, or whether any filtering is possible. This is adequate but thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description adequately states what is returned (games and scores). It does not explain the output format, but given the lack of an output schema, this is a minor omission. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters (board and matchId) with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get games and scores for a board in a Chess.com Daily team match.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('games and scores for a board'), and scopes it to 'Daily team match,' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_live_team_match_board for live matches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for daily team matches ('Daily team match'), which provides clear context for when to use it versus the live match variant. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives like get_live_team_match_board, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only 'Get' operation, but it does not disclose return format, update timing, or any potential edge-case behavior. The description mostly restates the name with minor additions ('today's', 'Chess.com').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and action clearly. It could mention the response format or daily reset time, but these are not essential for a simple fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies since the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('today's Chess.com daily puzzle'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_random_puzzle and other sibling tools, as it specifies the daily, non-random variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states what the tool returns, making the intended usage obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'today's' provides sufficient context and there are no competing puzzle tools except get_random_puzzle, which is clearly a different use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rrrmaster/chesscom-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server