What can you do with this server?

An MCP chess runtime that lets an LLM create, manage, analyze, and adapt chess games without outsourcing every decision to an engine. * Create/delete games, start from a FEN, import/export PGN, and read authoritative board state (FEN, turn, revision, check/mate/draw flags, history, castling). * Play moves by SAN or UCI with a stale-position guard using expected_revision. * List all legal moves with SAN, UCI, piece, capture, and promotion metadata. * Analyze the current position with Stockfish using fast/normal/deep presets or custom depth/multipv, returning cp/mate/WDL scores and principal variations. * Evaluate one or more moves with Stockfish, including cpLoss and best/excellent/good/inaccuracy/mistake/blunder classification. * Get human-like move probabilities from Maia3 at a target Elo. * Generate unified move candidates combining objective strength, human-likeness, and Lichess opening statistics, plus move-sensitivity information. * Rank candidates by strategic intent: best, strong, natural, balanced, ease_off, or give_chance. * Query the Lichess opening explorer for real human game statistics (requires LICHESS_TOKEN).

Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides access to Lichess opening explorer and real-game statistics, allowing move candidates and opening exploration to be informed by human game frequencies filtered by speed, rating, and database.

How do I use llm-chess-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@llm-chess-mcp Best move from FEN: r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/2B1P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 2 3" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

de en es ja ko ru zh

llm-chess-mcp

by prepaser

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

llm-chess-mcp

An MCP chess runtime that lets LLMs play, analyze, and adapt their strength without outsourcing every decision to an engine.

Rather than returning a single best move, it exposes objective strength (Stockfish), human move likelihood (Maia3), and real-game statistics (Lichess) so the LLM can choose how it wants to play. The LLM does the strategy and judgment; the MCP server handles all the computation.

Engines

Engine	Role	Runtime
Stockfish 18 (WASM)	Objective evaluation, best moves, multipv	In-process (npm `stockfish`)
Maia3 5M (ONNX)	Human-like move probabilities conditioned on Elo	Dedicated Node child processes (`onnxruntime-node`)
Lichess explorer	Real human game statistics	HTTP (needs token)

No external engine executable or Python runtime is required at deploy time. Stockfish runs in the server process, while Maia inference runs in dedicated Node child processes. The published package bundles the Maia3 5M model; other export variants are not runtime options unless their ONNX files are provided separately.

Related MCP server: Chess MCP

Build from source

The published runtime supports Node.js 20.3 and newer. Repository maintenance uses Node.js 22.13 or newer because pnpm 11 and the coverage gate require it.

pnpm install
pnpm build
pnpm test

pnpm test:unit runs the unit suite. pnpm test:e2e builds first, then runs the MCP transport tests. pnpm check runs the full local gate; use pnpm release:check before publishing.

Transports

stdio remains the default transport and requires no flags. To expose a local Streamable HTTP endpoint instead:

pnpm build
node dist/index.js --transport http

The server listens on http://127.0.0.1:3000/mcp and supports Streamable HTTP sessions, JSON responses, and SSE. The equivalent development command is pnpm dev:http.

HTTP options:

--host <host>            Bind host (default: 127.0.0.1)
--port <port>            Listen port (default: 3000)
--path <path>            Endpoint path (default: /mcp)
--allowed-host <host>    Allowed Host/Origin hostname; repeat as needed

The package also exposes a typed ESM API:

import { serveHttp } from "llm-chess-mcp";

const server = await serveHttp({ port: 3000, bodyTimeoutMs: 15_000 });
await server.close();

The root API also exports buildServer, GameStore, ChessError, ExplorerError, the service/domain types needed to provide custom AppServices, and safe chess helpers including parseImportedPgn, pgnOf, and snapshotChess. The package root is the supported public API. Deep imports under dist/ are intentionally not exported and will fail with ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED; use named root exports instead. This removes the previous dist/* compatibility exports and is a breaking change for integrations that imported internal modules.

bodyTimeoutMs limits HTTP body upload time; it is not a whole-tool deadline. The deprecated requestTimeoutMs alias remains supported when bodyTimeoutMs is omitted.

Binding to 0.0.0.0 or :: requires at least one --allowed-host. HTTP mode does not provide authentication or TLS; use a trusted network or an authenticated reverse proxy when exposing it beyond localhost. Origin values are validated when present, but the server does not emit browser CORS headers.

Lichess token (optional)

The opening explorer now requires authentication. Generate a personal access token at https://lichess.org/account/oauth/token/create and set it in .env:

cp .env.example .env
# set LICHESS_TOKEN=...

Without a token, opening_explorer returns a disabled notice; all other tools work.

Explorer filters are strict. Speeds are ultraBullet, bullet, blitz, rapid, classical, and correspondence; rating buckets are 0, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, and 2500. masters accepts neither filter. Invalid filters fail locally. Transient failures (network, timeout, 429, and 5xx) are retried once within a 12-second total budget; invalid requests and other 4xx responses are not retried. Responses must be valid UTF-8 JSON and are limited to 1 MiB, 256 moves, and 256 characters per move or opening string.

Configure in your MCP client

opencode

Add to opencode.json (project) or ~/.config/opencode/opencode.json (global):

{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "llm-chess-mcp": {
      "type": "local",
      "command": ["npx", "-y", "llm-chess-mcp"],
      "enabled": true,
      "environment": {
        "LICHESS_TOKEN": "your-token"
      }
    }
  }
}

Claude Code

Add to .mcp.json (project) or ~/.claude.json (global), or run:

claude mcp add llm-chess-mcp -- npx -y llm-chess-mcp

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "llm-chess-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "llm-chess-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "LICHESS_TOKEN": "your-token"
      }
    }
  }
}

Codex CLI

Add to ~/.codex/config.toml:

[mcp_servers.llm-chess-mcp]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "llm-chess-mcp"]

[mcp_servers.llm-chess-mcp.env]
LICHESS_TOKEN = "your-token"

Or via the CLI:

codex mcp add llm-chess-mcp --command npx --args -y llm-chess-mcp --env LICHESS_TOKEN=your-token

Tools

Tool	Description
`create_game`	Create a game (optionally from a FEN), returns `game_id`
`delete_game`	Delete a process-shared game and free game capacity
`game_state`	Authoritative state: FEN, turn, revision, check/mate/draw flags, history, last move, castling (optional ASCII)
`game_play_move`	Play a move (SAN or UCI) — the only mutating tool, with stale-position guard
`game_legal_moves`	All legal moves with metadata
`game_pgn`	Export the game as PGN
`game_import_pgn`	Import a PGN into a new game
`position_analyze`	Stockfish multipv lines (cp/mate/WDL + UCI/SAN PV), `analysis_level` preset
`human_move_distribution`	Maia3 human-move probabilities at a target Elo
`move_evaluate`	Score one or more moves + cpLoss + classification
`move_candidates`	Primary tool: unified candidates (objective + human + opening)
`move_candidates_by_intent`	Convenience layer: candidates ranked for a strategic intent
`opening_explorer`	Lichess human game statistics

Result format

structuredContent is the canonical successful result. Handler-level failures set isError and provide structuredContent.error. Input-schema failures are generated by the MCP SDK before the handler and use its standard isError text result without structuredContent. Otherwise, content is only a short human-readable summary and must not be parsed as data.

Score conventions

Stockfish scores are side-to-move perspective: positive cp = side to move is better; mate N = side to move mates in N. wdl is [win, draw, loss] in permille for the side to move.
move_candidates gives moverCp (the mover's perspective — higher is better for the player choosing the move) and whiteCp (fixed white perspective) so the sign never flips on you.
move_evaluate reports the score from the mover's perspective, plus cpLoss (centipawns lost vs the best move) and a classification: best / excellent / good / inaccuracy / mistake / blunder.
maia3Prob is a human-likelihood, not move quality. A high-probability move can still be objectively bad.
Successful analysis continuations return corresponding pv and pvSan arrays of equal length in UCI and SAN. An invalid engine continuation is rejected at the internal tool boundary instead of returning a truncated pvSan.

Candidate structure

move_candidates returns each candidate with three independent facets:

{
  "uci": "g1f3",
  "san": "Nf3",
  "objective": { "rank": 1, "moverCp": 55, "whiteCp": 55, "cpLoss": 0, "moverMate": null, "wdl": [153, 844, 3] },
  "human": { "maia3Prob": 0.62, "selfElo": 1500, "opponentElo": 1500 },
  "opening": { "status": "available", "games": 18421, "frequency": 0.31 }
}

objective — Stockfish: engine strength, never conflated with human-likeness. moverCp is from the mover's perspective (higher = better for the chooser).
human — Maia3 conditional probability at a target Elo.
opening — Lichess empirical frequency (a different signal from Maia3).

opening.status is available, no_data (API ok but no games in this position), unavailable (timeout/429/401), or disabled (no token). Stockfish + Maia3 results are always returned regardless.

move_candidates also returns moveSensitivity, describing how sharply the evaluation changes across the top engine lines:

{ "moveSensitivity": { "level": "high", "topMoveSpreadCp": 245 } }

level is low (<80cp spread), medium (80–200cp), or high (≥200cp). High sensitivity means choosing among plausible alternatives can materially change the evaluation — useful for deciding whether to ease off or play precisely.

Analysis levels

Stockfish tools accept an analysis_level preset instead of raw UCI knobs:

Level	Depth	MultiPV
`fast`	8	5
`normal`	15	8
`deep`	22	10

Explicit depth/multipv overrides are still available for advanced use.

Stale-position guard

Every state read returns a revision. game_play_move requires expected_revision; if the game has advanced since your last read, the move is rejected:

{ "error": { "code": "STALE_POSITION", "message": "position changed: expected revision 2, current 3" } }

Runtime limits

Up to 1,000 games are retained per process; idle games expire after one hour.
move_evaluate accepts at most 10 moves per call.
Imported and exported PGNs are limited to 1 MiB, 256 headers, and 4,096 plies; stored snapshots enforce the same byte, header, token, and ply resource bounds. Imports also cap the mainline and variations together at 32,768 structural elements and 16 KiB per lexical token. Every variation is legality-checked; game state retains the mainline. UTF-8 BOMs and standard escaped header values are supported.
Custom FENs reject inconsistent castling/en-passant metadata and impossible pawn or promotion material.
Stockfish accepts up to 32 active or queued analyses. Maia runs at most two inferences concurrently and queues up to 32 more.
Lichess Explorer requests run one at a time and share 429 cooldowns.
HTTP retains at most 64 MCP sessions; sessions with no active request expire after 30 minutes. An open GET/SSE stream keeps its session active.
HTTP accepts bodies up to 2 MiB under normal body-parser capacity. Once those parsers are full, an overflow request receives only a small, up-to-8 KiB probe; only a complete MCP cancellation notification can proceed, and no accepted parser is preempted. The listener's connection limit bounds overflow probes. After body parsing, it permits 16 concurrent POST dispatches and downstream compute/network jobs process-wide, with two of each per session. A separate bounded control lane prioritizes MCP cancellation when normal dispatch capacity is full. If an existing-session POST response closes before it finishes, its session is closed and its work is aborted; an uncooperative downstream operation still holds capacity until it settles. HTTP also caps connections at 128 and applies a 15-second body upload deadline plus bounded header, socket, and keep-alive timeouts.

Programmatic users can override the HTTP limits through HttpServerOptions. These safeguards do not replace public-edge quotas: a public deployment must still enforce request, connection, and authentication limits at the reverse proxy.

MCP cancellation notifications, session deletion, and server shutdown propagate to body uploads and Stockfish, Maia, and Lichess work. Stockfish stops safely at its UCI queue boundary, drains queued work during shutdown, and rejects new analysis until teardown completes. Lichess fetch and retry waits abort immediately. Maia runs native inference in dedicated child processes; cancelling active work terminates its child, while queued cancellation is immediate. A raw response disconnect for an existing-session POST closes that session and aborts its work. Reconnect with a new session, then re-read the process-shared game state before retrying a move.

Intents

move_candidates_by_intent ranks candidates for a chosen intent. It is a convenience layer over move_candidates; the fixed thresholds below are heuristic defaults, not the source of truth:

Intent	Meaning
`best`	Strongest engine move
`strong`	Engine-strong but human-plausible
`natural`	Most human-typical at the target Elo
`balanced`	Blend of strength and human-likeness
`ease_off`	Human-plausible moves that modestly reduce advantage without changing the expected result
`give_chance`	Human-plausible inaccuracies that meaningfully improve the opponent's chances

This tool ranks candidates but does not choose a move. Use the returned signals and conversation context to make the final decision — do not map user skill mechanically to an intent.

Example flow

The normal play loop is three calls:

create_game → game_id
move_candidates → pick a move
game_play_move (with expected_revision) → commit it

Go deeper only when you need to:

position_analyze — objective best lines
human_move_distribution — what a human of a given Elo would play
opening_explorer — real-game statistics
move_evaluate — score a specific move (or compare several)

Export Maia3 to ONNX

This step needs Python + PyTorch once. It downloads the Maia3 checkpoint, verifies the reimplementation against the original, and exports models/maia3-5m.onnx.

uv venv .venv-maia3 --python 3.13
uv pip install --python .venv-maia3/bin/python -r scripts/requirements.txt
uv pip install --python .venv-maia3/bin/python "maia3 @ git+https://github.com/CSSLab/maia3.git@1e13597c42d4858b7cfd7cfdae01e297263364b2"
pnpm export:maia3            # -> models/maia3-5m.onnx

The resulting .onnx is committed/bundled.

Maia3 ONNX verification

The exported ONNX model is regression-tested against the upstream Maia3 implementation across fixed positions and Elo pairs:

.venv-maia3/bin/python scripts/verify_maia3.py --model 5m

It checks top-1/top-k move agreement and max probability error to detect export/runtime regressions. The bundled maia3-5m.onnx passes with 100% top-1 and top-5 agreement and max probability error < 1e-4.

Package verification

Package artifacts are verified locally; this project intentionally has no hosted CI workflow.

Run pnpm check for the deterministic offline gate. Use pnpm test:package to pack the project, install the tarball in a clean temporary directory, and run the installed llm-chess-mcp binary against the real Stockfish and Maia runtimes. pnpm release:check runs both checks plus the production dependency audit and package manifest dry run.

License & attribution

This project is licensed under the AGPL-3.0 (see LICENSE).

It bundles and depends on third-party components:

Component	License	Source
Maia3 (Chessformer)	AGPL-3.0	UofT CSSLab — Monroe et al., Chessformer: A Unified Architecture for Chess Modeling (ICLR 2026)
Stockfish (via npm `stockfish`)	GPL-3.0	The Stockfish developers
onnxruntime-node	MIT	Microsoft
chess.js	BSD-2-Clause	Jeff Hlywa

The bundled Maia3 model (models/maia3-5m.onnx) is derived from UofTCSSLab/Maia3-5M at b6559de2398d7140b985f28fd2c19fb5e47ddabe. The ONNX export is a build-time step (scripts/export_maia3.py); the runtime does not execute any Maia3 Python code.

Available Tools

13 tools

create_gameCreate Chess GameA

Create a new chess game and return its game_id. The server is the authoritative source of board state — never track the board yourself. Optionally pass a FEN to start from a custom position.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fen`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game_id`	Yes
`revision`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already indicate a write operation, but the description adds the critical behavioral directive to treat the server as the source of truth and avoid local board tracking. It also discloses the return of game_id. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds value: the core function, the state-tracking warning, and the optional parameter explanation. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple create tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, return value, usage caution, and parameter semantics. It does not mention error behavior or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% coverage for the 'fen' parameter, but the description clearly explains that it is optional and used to start from a custom FEN position. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource pair ('Create a new chess game') and explicitly states the return value (game_id), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete_game and game_import_pgn.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: the server is authoritative and one should never track the board locally, which implies how to use this with other game-state tools. It also notes the optional FEN for custom positions but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like game_import_pgn.

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

delete_gameDelete Chess GameC

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a game and free its session.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game_id`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deleted`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds "free its session" as a mild behavioral note but doesn't disclose permanence of deletion, whether related data (moves, analyses) is destroyed, or access requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists; the description adds modest value over what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is exactly one sentence (7 words), front-loaded with the action verb. It's efficient but arguably over-terse — the "free its session" concept and the game_id requirement both deserve elaboration. This borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, though it avoids padding.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter destructive tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The main gap is the unexplained "free its session" semantic — whether deletion is permanent, whether sessions are tied to games, and what the caller should expect afterward. Low complexity lowers the bar, but the session concept creates real ambiguity the description should resolve.

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 0%, and the description fails to compensate. While game_id is a self-descriptive parameter name, the description doesn't explain how to obtain a valid game_id (e.g., from create_game or game_state), any format expectations, or validation constraints. With zero coverage, the description carries the burden and drops the ball.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Delete a game" clearly identifies the verb and resource, and it implicitly distinguishes from create_game among siblings. However, "free its session" is vague and unexplained — it's unclear what a session is, what freeing it means, or whether it implies releasing resources beyond the game itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does 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, no mention of prerequisites (ownership, active games, permissions), and no reference to sibling tools like create_game as the inverse operation. It neither states exclusions nor implies usage context beyond the literal action.

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

game_import_pgnImport Chess PGNA

Import a PGN into a new game. Returns a new game_id with the position after all PGN moves. Rejects malformed or illegal PGN.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pgn`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fen`	Yes
`turn`	Yes
`isDraw`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`history`	Yes
`isCheck`	Yes
`castling`	Yes
`lastMove`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`isGameOver`	Yes
`moveNumber`	Yes
`isCheckmate`	Yes
`isStalemate`	Yes
`isDrawByFiftyMoves`	Yes
`isThreefoldRepetition`	Yes
`isInsufficientMaterial`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that a new game is created (side effect), returns a game_id, and rejects invalid PGN. However, it does not mention idempotency, potential side effects on other resources, or permission requirements, but the core side effect is well-stated.

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?

The description is three concise sentences: action, result, and error handling. No unnecessary details or redundant phrasing. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description clearly states the output: 'Returns a new game_id.' It also mentions error rejection. It does not describe the error format or potential additional outputs (e.g., full game state), but for a simple import tool, these details are not critical. The description provides sufficient context for a basic understanding.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The only parameter 'pgn' has no description in the schema. The description implies it is a PGN string by the tool name and purpose, and mentions rejection of malformed PGN, but does not elaborate on acceptable format (e.g., whether headers are required) or provide examples. This is minimal but adequate for a standard chess PGN.

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 the action: 'Import a PGN into a new game' and its outcome: 'Returns a new game_id with the position after all PGN moves.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_game, game_pgn, and game_play_move by specifying the input format (PGN) and the new game creation.

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 mentions error behavior ('Rejects malformed or illegal PGN') but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a PGN is available versus starting a blank game with create_game. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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

game_legal_movesList Legal Chess MovesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all legal moves in the current position (SAN, UCI, piece, capture, promotion).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game_id`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`moves`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`revision`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate these. The description adds behavioral context by listing the output fields (SAN, UCI, piece, capture, promotion), which informs the agent about the nature of the response. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and output fields. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the necessary context. It specifies the output fields and the operation's scope ('current position'). It could have mentioned edge cases (e.g., no legal moves) or the meaning of 'current position' in terms of move history, but these are not critical for a basic move-listing tool.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, game_id, with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not mention game_id at all, leaving its semantics implicit. While the parameter is self-explanatory (identifying the game), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, providing no added meaning beyond the name and type.

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 the tool lists all legal moves in the current position, specifying the output fields (SAN, UCI, piece, capture, promotion). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like game_play_move (which executes moves) and move_candidates (which may provide candidate analysis), 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage is for retrieving legal moves for the current game identified by game_id, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like move_candidates or position_analyze. The context is clear, but no exclusions or specific when-to-use guidance are given, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

game_pgnExport Chess PGNB

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export the current game as PGN.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game_id`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pgn`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`revision`	Yes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral context. The word 'Export' is consistent with read-only, but there is no elaboration on side effects, permissions, or response details beyond the output schema.

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?

The description is a single sentence with zero filler. It efficiently states the tool's function without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

Given 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 an output schema, so the description covers the core action. However, it lacks any guidance on alternatives or parameter specifics, and the lack of usage context means the description is only minimally adequate for the tool's overall adoption.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter, but it only refers to 'the current game' without explaining that game_id identifies which game. The lone parameter's meaning is left implicit, forcing the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 states a specific action ('Export') on a specific resource ('the current game') with a clear output format (PGN). It distinguishes from siblings like game_import_pgn (import) and game_state (state retrieval), making its 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 Guidelines2/5

Does 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 game_state or game_import_pgn. The description is a single declarative sentence with no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

game_play_movePlay Chess MoveA

Destructive

Play a move (SAN like 'e4' or UCI like 'e2e4') and return the resulting state. This is the ONLY tool that mutates the game. expected_revision is required: pass the revision from your most recent game_state/move_candidates read. If the game has advanced since then, the move is rejected with STALE_POSITION.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`move`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`expected_revision`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fen`	Yes
`move`	Yes
`turn`	Yes
`isDraw`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`history`	Yes
`isCheck`	Yes
`castling`	Yes
`lastMove`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`isGameOver`	Yes
`moveNumber`	Yes
`isCheckmate`	Yes
`isStalemate`	Yes
`isDrawByFiftyMoves`	Yes
`isThreefoldRepetition`	Yes
`isInsufficientMaterial`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical concurrency behavior: the STALE_POSITION rejection if the revision is outdated. It also states it returns the resulting state, which is useful even with an output schema.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver the core action, uniqueness, and concurrency requirement with zero fluff. Each sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: mutation, concurrency control, error condition, and move format. It is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'move' parameter (SAN vs UCI) and the 'expected_revision' parameter (required, from a recent read, and its role in staleness). The 'game_id' is self-explanatory, so overall it adds substantial meaning.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Play a move' and even clarifies SAN/UCI formats. The unique claim 'This is the ONLY tool that mutates the game' clearly differentiates it from all siblings, which are read-only or other operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly states when to use this tool (to make a move) and specifies the required expected_revision from a prior read. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but by highlighting it's the only mutating tool, it implicitly advises that all other tools are non-mutating.

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

game_stateGet Chess Game StateA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the authoritative state of a game: FEN, turn, revision, check/mate/draw flags, move history, last move, castling rights. Use this instead of remembering the board. Set include_ascii=true to also get a board diagram.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game_id`	Yes
`include_ascii`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fen`	Yes
`turn`	Yes
`board`	No
`isDraw`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`history`	Yes
`isCheck`	Yes
`castling`	Yes
`lastMove`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`isGameOver`	Yes
`moveNumber`	Yes
`isCheckmate`	Yes
`isStalemate`	Yes
`isDrawByFiftyMoves`	Yes
`isThreefoldRepetition`	Yes
`isInsufficientMaterial`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds value by specifying the content of the response (fields) and the optional include_ascii behavior, but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances like response format or error conditions beyond what annotations already imply. With strong annotations, this is adequate.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and fields, followed by an optional usage hint. Every sentence carries value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (which explains return structure) and the simple parameter set, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It even lists the key fields for quick understanding and provides a usage example for the optional parameter. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_ascii (setting it true provides a board diagram) but leaves game_id implicit, though the name suggests it identifies the game. It adds some meaning for include_ascii, but could have explicitly stated game_id's purpose. Since game_id is evident from context, this partially compensates.

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 the tool returns the authoritative game state and enumerates specific fields (FEN, turn, revision, flags, move history, etc.). It differentiates itself from siblings like game_pgn (which likely returns a different format) by focusing on the internal state, and explicitly suggests using it instead of remembering the board.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance to use this tool instead of relying on memory, giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the ton of 'authoritative state' and scope differentiate it from related tools. No exclusions are stated, but the implied usage is clear.

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

human_move_distributionEstimate Human Chess MovesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the Maia3 human-like move probability distribution for the current position, conditioned on a target Elo. Higher probability = more human-typical at that rating. This is NOT move quality — a high-probability move can still be objectively bad.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`elo`	No
`top_n`	No
`game_id`	Yes
`oppo_elo`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`elo`	Yes
`moves`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`oppo_elo`	Yes
`revision`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and determinism. The description adds crucial behavioral nuances: it clarifies that higher probability means more human-typical, and explicitly notes that this is not move quality, preventing misinterpretation. It does not contradict annotations, and adds context beyond what annotations provide, such as the meaning of the output values.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences, no fluff. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the function and key input (Elo), and the second provides a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (read-only, 1 required param) and has an output schema, so the description needn't detail the return structure. It covers the core usage and behavior (human-likeness, Elo conditioning, not-quality warning). The main gap is parameter semantics (covered separately), but overall the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'target Elo' (which maps to elo) but does not clarify top_n (how many moves returned), oppo_elo (opponent rating effect), or game_id (required, identifies position). The word 'distribution' might imply all moves, but top_n suggests a subset, creating ambiguity. This is inadequate for a 4-param tool with no schema descriptions.

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 the tool returns the Maia3 human-like move probability distribution for the current position, conditioned on target Elo. It explicitly distinguishes itself from move quality ('This is NOT move quality'), which differentiates it from siblings like move_evaluate or position_analyze. The verb 'Return' and specific resource 'Maia3...distribution' make the purpose precise.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use: when you need human-like probabilities for a given rating, and warns against confusing with move quality. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the 'NOT move quality' caveat curbs misuse. The 'conditioned on a target Elo' hints at the parameter, but no direct guidance on top_n or oppo_elo is given. So it provides clear context with a partial exclusion but lacks explicit alternative naming.

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

move_candidatesGenerate Chess Move CandidatesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

The primary move-selection tool. Combine Stockfish objective evaluation (moverCp, whiteCp, cpLoss, mate, WDL), Maia3 human probability, and Lichess real-game statistics into a unified candidate list. moverCp is from the mover's perspective: higher = better for the player choosing the move. Use this before choosing a move; the final choice is yours.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`elo`	No
`game_id`	Yes
`sf_depth`	No
`lichess_db`	No	lichess
`maia_top_n`	No
`sf_multipv`	No
`analysis_level`	No	normal
`lichess_speeds`	No
`lichess_ratings`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`elo`	Yes
`fen`	Yes
`turn`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`candidates`	Yes
`analysis_level`	Yes
`moveSensitivity`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that moverCp is from the mover's perspective and that the tool merges three distinct evaluation sources, which goes beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary role, and every sentence adds meaningful context: what the tool does, the moverCp perspective, and when to use it. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the core selection context well. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools like move_candidates_by_intent, but the 'primary' framing mitigates this gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the nine input parameters such as elo, sf_depth, lichess_ratings, or analysis_level. It adds meaning to the output metrics but fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 this is the primary move-selection tool and that it combines Stockfish evaluation, Maia3 human probability, and Lichess statistics into a unified candidate list. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_evaluate or move_candidates_by_intent.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool before choosing a move, which is strong usage guidance. However, it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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

move_candidates_by_intentRank Chess Moves by IntentA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Convenience layer over move_candidates: rank candidates for a strategic intent. This tool RANKS candidates but does NOT choose a move — use the returned signals and conversation context to make the final decision. Do not map user skill mechanically to an intent. intents: best (strongest engine move), strong (engine-strong but human-plausible), natural (most human-typical), balanced (blend of strength and human-likeness), ease_off (human-plausible moves that modestly reduce advantage without changing the expected result), give_chance (human-plausible inaccuracies that meaningfully improve the opponent's chances).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`elo`	No
`intent`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`sf_depth`	No
`lichess_db`	No	lichess
`maia_top_n`	No
`sf_multipv`	No
`analysis_level`	No	normal
`lichess_speeds`	No
`lichess_ratings`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`elo`	Yes
`fen`	Yes
`turn`	Yes
`intent`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`candidates`	Yes
`analysis_level`	Yes
`moveSensitivity`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating it RANKS but does NOT choose a move, and clarifies the meaning of each intent, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph but packs essential information: purpose, relationship to sibling, behavioral caveat, and intent definitions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details intents. Slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema. The description explains the core intent parameter and the tool's role, but does not cover other parameters like elo, sf_depth, or lichess_db. However, the output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description is adequate for a complex tool but could mention how other parameters affect ranking.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'intent' parameter in detail with definitions for each enum value, which is critical. However, other parameters like elo, sf_depth, lichess_db, etc., are not explained in the description, relying on the schema's names and defaults. Given the complexity, the description covers the most important parameter but leaves others to inference.

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 it is a convenience layer over move_candidates that ranks candidates for a strategic intent. It explicitly distinguishes itself from move_candidates and clarifies it does not choose a move, which differentiates it from siblings like game_play_move.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as a ranking layer over move_candidates, and explicitly warns not to map user skill mechanically to an intent. It also lists all intents with definitions, giving clear context for selection.

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

move_evaluateEvaluate Chess MovesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate one or more moves with Stockfish without mutating the game. Pass a single move string or an array of moves to compare. Returns, for each move, the score after the move (from the mover's perspective), cpLoss vs the best move, and a classification (best/excellent/good/inaccuracy/mistake/blunder).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`move`	Yes
`depth`	No
`game_id`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`game_id`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`revision`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description explicitly states 'without mutating the game,' reinforcing that. It also adds value by describing the output (score, cpLoss, classification) and the engine (Stockfish), which are not required but provide useful behavioral context.

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?

The description is concise—three sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose and non-mutation guarantee. Every sentence adds meaning without redundancy.

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?

An output schema is present, so detailed return field explanations are unnecessary. The description covers the primary purpose, input flexibility, and key output categories, making it adequate for most usage scenarios. Minor omissions (e.g., depth semantics) are acceptable given the schema's constraints.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description partially compensates by explaining the 'move' parameter format (string or array). However, it does not clarify the 'depth' or 'game_id' parameters beyond what the schema already provides, leaving incomplete semantic coverage.

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 the tool evaluates moves using Stockfish, specifying the action (evaluate), resource (moves), and context (without mutating the game). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like game_play_move (which mutates) and game_legal_moves (which lists legal moves).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies its use for analysis rather than gameplay via 'without mutating the game' and mentions comparing moves, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

opening_explorerQuery Lichess Opening ExplorerB

Read-onlyIdempotent

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

ParametersJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

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

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

Conciseness4/5

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

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

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

Completeness2/5

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

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

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

Parameters2/5

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

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

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

Purpose4/5

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

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

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

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

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

position_analyzeAnalyze Chess PositionA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run Stockfish on the current position and return the top engine lines (multipv). Scores are from the side-to-move perspective: positive cp = side to move is better; mate N = side to move mates in N. wdl is [win, draw, loss] in permille for the side to move. Use analysis_level (fast/normal/deep) or explicit depth/multipv. Does NOT mutate the game.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`depth`	No
`game_id`	Yes
`multipv`	No
`analysis_level`	No	normal

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fen`	Yes
`turn`	Yes
`lines`	Yes
`game_id`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`analysis_level`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's statement 'Does NOT mutate the game' adds no new information, but it does clarify the evaluation perspective and wdl format, and explains analysis levels without contradiction.

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?

All sentences are purposeful and detailed without redundancy, front-loading the core action and then explaining parameters and output semantics efficiently.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the tool's functionality, parameter choices, and output interpretation (cp, mate, wdl) completely, making it highly usable.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the meaning and effect of analysis_level, depth, and multipv, and clarifies that game_id is required to identify the position. This compensates fully for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool runs Stockfish on the current position and returns top engine lines, distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_evaluate and move_candidates.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explains how to specify analysis level or depth/multipv, and mentions it does not mutate the game, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

13 tool updatesv0.3.1Aug 21, 2026
- First observedcreate_game
- First observeddelete_game
- First observedgame_import_pgn
- First observedgame_legal_moves
- First observedgame_pgn
- First observedgame_play_move
- First observedgame_state
- First observedhuman_move_distribution
- First observedmove_candidates
- First observedmove_candidates_by_intent
- First observedmove_evaluate
- First observedopening_explorer
- First observedposition_analyze

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The game lifecycle tools (create_game, delete_game, game_state, game_play_move, etc.) are clearly distinct. The analysis tools (position_analyze, move_evaluate, move_candidates, move_candidates_by_intent) have overlapping purposes, but descriptions clarify their unique roles (e.g., analyze position vs. evaluate specific moves).

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case pattern with resource prefixes (game_, move_, position_, human_, opening_). There is some inconsistency: create_game and delete_game are verb-first, while others are noun-first (game_state, position_analyze, move_candidates), but the pattern is still readable.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well within the 3-15 range and each tool earns its place covering game creation, state management, move execution, and multiple analysis capabilities. The count feels appropriate for a comprehensive chess server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full game lifecycle (create, play, query, delete) and exports/imports via PGN. It includes extensive analysis features (Stockfish, Maia, opening explorer) with no obvious dead ends. The only minor gap is no list_games tool, but the server likely manages games internally.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Backtest360 A
com.backtest360
MCP server exposing the Backtest360 engine API as tools for AI agents.
Finance Research & Data
202
mcp A
ai.llmse
Public MCP server for the LLM Search Engine
Search RAG Systems Developer Tools
102
openmm-mcp A
io.github.QBT-Labs
MCP server for OpenMM — exposes market data, account, trading, and strategy tools to AI agents
Finance
1513
anotherai
dev.anotherai
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents Testing & QA Tools
2

Related MCP Servers

mcp-stockfish
Command Line Games & Gamification
sonirico
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that lets your AI talk to Stockfish. Because apparently we needed to make chess engines even more accessible to our silicon overlords.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-29 12:25 UTC)
15
MIT
Chess MCP
Games & Gamification AI & Machine Learning
arvid-berndtsson
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
A powerful chess engine and game server built with the Model Context Protocol (MCP). Play chess against AI, analyze positions, and integrate chess functionality into your AI applications.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-22 09:13 UTC)
20
1
ISC
chess-coach-mcp
Games & Gamification AI & Machine Learning Education & Learning Tools
parkseokjune
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
A hybrid AI chess coach MCP server that uses Stockfish for grounded evaluation and LLM for natural-language coaching, enabling game analysis, weakness diagnosis, and personalized drills from your own games.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-18 06:46 UTC)
6
1
MIT
mcp-chess
Games & Gamification Sports
dvip1
F
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that exposes Stockfish chess analysis to LLM chat clients, enabling move analysis, game review, and explanation of engine choices.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-26 08:57 UTC)
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/prepaser/llm-chess-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server