Skip to main content
Glama

Lichess

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Tablebase

tablebase
Read-onlyIdempotent

Syzygy tablebase lookup (≤7 pieces). Variant: standard (default), atomic, antichess.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fenYes
variantNostandard | atomic | antichess

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dtmNoDistance to mate
dtzNoDistance to zero (draw/mate)
fenNoPosition FEN
movesNoLegal moves and their outcomes
bestMovesNoBest moves in UCI notation
checkmateNoPosition is checkmate
stalemateNoPosition is stalemate
variant_winNoVariant-specific win
variant_lossNoVariant-specific loss
insufficient_materialNoInsufficient material

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "fen": "8/8/8/4k3/8/8/4K3/8 w - - 0 1"
+  },
+  {
+    "fen": "8/8/8/4k3/8/8/4K3/8 w - - 0 1",
+    "variant": "atomic"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bestMoves": {
+      "description": "Best moves in UCI notation",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "checkmate": {
+      "description": "Position is checkmate",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "dtm": {
+      "description": "Distance to mate",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "dtz": {
+      "description": "Distance to zero (draw/mate)",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "fen": {
+      "description": "Position FEN",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "insufficient_material": {
+      "description": "Insufficient material",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "moves": {
+      "description": "Legal moves and their outcomes",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "checkmate": {
+            "description": "Move is checkmate",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "dtm": {
+            "description": "DTM after move",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "dtz": {
+            "description": "DTZ after move",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "san": {
+            "description": "Move in SAN notation",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "stalemate": {
+            "description": "Move is stalemate",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "uci": {
+            "description": "Move in UCI notation",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "stalemate": {
+      "description": "Position is stalemate",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "variant_loss": {
+      "description": "Variant-specific loss",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "variant_win": {
+      "description": "Variant-specific win",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the lookup is for ≤7 pieces and supports specific variants, which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence conveying core purpose, piece limit, and variants. No extraneous words; every element earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity, output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently addresses the key aspects. Missing details like return format are covered by the output schema. Slightly limited for deeper scenarios.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description covers 50% (variant parameter has enum values). The description clarifies that 'fen' is a chess position and that the tool works for ≤7 pieces, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal definitions. It also repeats variant options, reinforcing usage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Syzygy tablebase lookup' with piece limit (≤7) and variants (standard, atomic, antichess). It unambiguously identifies the tool's function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like opening_explorer or top_players.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for chess endgame positions requiring Syzygy tablebase results but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like opening_explorer. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

All Lichess toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes chess tools with numerous data query tools from Pipeworx, causing significant overlap. Multiple ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research have similar purposes, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Chess tools are distinct but compete with many unrelated tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: chess tools use mostly underscores (top_players, opening_explorer), Pipeworx tools use mixed styles (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile), and memory/subscription tools use simple verbs (remember, subscribe). The naming is inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the count is high and unfocused. A chess server would typically have 10-15 tools; the remaining 31 tools from Pipeworx are unrelated and overwhelm the set. The server tries to cover too many domains, making it bloated for its primary purpose.

Completeness2/5

The chess-specific tools (10) cover basic queries but lack deeper chess analysis (e.g., puzzles, board evaluation). The extensive Pipeworx tools are out of scope for a Lichess server, resulting in an incomplete surface for the expected domain and an excessive surface for unrelated data lookups.

Resources