Skip to main content
Glama

Lichess

by io.github.pipeworx-io

User Performance

user_performance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Single-variant performance + best rated game for a user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
perfYesbullet | blitz | rapid | classical | correspondence | chess960 | crazyhouse | antichess | atomic | horde | kingOfTheHill | racingKings | threeCheck | ultraBullet
usernameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rankNoRanking in variant
statNo
bestWinsNoBest wins
percentileNoPercentile ranking

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "perf": "blitz",
-    "username": "hikaru"
-  },
-  {
-    "perf": "classical",
-    "username": "magnuschess"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "perf": "blitz",
+    "username": "DrNykterstein"
+  },
+  {
+    "perf": "bullet",
+    "username": "Zhigalko_Sergei"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "perf": "blitz",
+    "username": "hikaru"
+  },
+  {
+    "perf": "classical",
+    "username": "magnuschess"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bestWins": {
+      "description": "Best wins",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "gameId": {
+            "description": "Game ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "opponentName": {
+            "description": "Opponent username",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "opponentRating": {
+            "description": "Opponent rating",
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "percentile": {
+      "description": "Percentile ranking",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "rank": {
+      "description": "Ranking in variant",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "stat": {
+      "properties": {
+        "plays": {
+          "description": "Games played",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "prog": {
+          "description": "Progress",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "prov": {
+          "description": "Provisional",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "rating": {
+          "description": "Current rating",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "rd": {
+          "description": "Rating deviation",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "score": {
+          "description": "Score",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns 'performance' and 'best rated game', which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate but minimal. Output schema exists and annotations are complete, but description could include more context about what 'performance' entails or any prerequisites. For a simple tool this is acceptable.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50% (username missing description). Tool description does not explain parameters at all. Does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states it returns single-variant performance and best rated game for a user. Specific verb-resource combination distinguishes from siblings like 'user' or 'user_status'. Could be slightly more explicit but not tautological.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'user' or 'user_status'. Does not mention exclusions or preferability.

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