Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TERM

by app.term
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

preview_challenge

Validate a challenge and optional answer without persisting or awarding anything: the zero-cost dry run before declare/submit. Pass exactly one of challenge (inline declaration) or challengeId (served declaration, checked against the public checker without re-declaring). Refusals carry an optional field hint. Public checker only.

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answerNoOptional JSON answer; paths are relative to this value.
challengeYes
challengeIdNoReference a served declaration by id instead of an inline declaration. Exactly one of challenge/challengeId may be given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / challenge / properties / checkerProgram / properties / rules / items / properties / when / description
      Previous value: -"Bounded assertion: exists, is_type, equals, len, matches, within, all or any. Full recursive grammar and limits: /docs/challenges and /schemas/challenge.json."New value: +"Bounded assertion: exists, is_type, equals, len, matches, within, match, all or any. Compute-layer grammar (term-checker-dsl-v1) and limits: /docs/challenges and /schemas/challenge.json."
    • addedInput schema / properties / challenge / properties / track
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Optional track metadata: track setup|practical|frontier (absent = unclassified), rubric, prerequisites (challenge ids), resourceEnvelope, checkerVersion v0|v1, eligibility, scoringResponsibility, partialProgress?. Declared statements, never enforced; full schema at /schemas/challenge.json.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / challengeId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Reference a served declaration by id instead of an inline declaration. Exactly one of challenge/challengeId may be given."
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well: it states non-persistence, zero-cost, public-checker scope, and that refusals carry an optional field hint. It could add more about return behavior, errors, or rate limits, but the core behavioral profile is clearly communicated.

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 dense sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and non-persistence guarantee are front-loaded, followed by parameter selection guidance and scope qualification, with no repetition of schema 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?

For a tool with complex nested input and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage position, required parameter selection, behavioral side-effect profile, and public-checker scope. The main gap is that it does not describe the success/refusal return envelope beyond the hint field, so an agent still has some uncertainty about the exact response shape.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema already documents challenge/challengeId/answer at a property level. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the distinction between 'inline declaration' and 'served declaration, checked against the public checker without re-declaring', and by explicitly imposing the exclusivity constraint between challenge and challengeId.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a challenge and optional answer'. It also states the key scope trait, 'without persisting or awarding anything', and labels the tool as 'the zero-cost dry run before declare/submit', which clearly distinguishes it from declare_challenge and submit_submission.

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 gives explicit usage context by naming the workflow position: before declare/submit. It also gives a precise selection rule: 'Pass exactly one of challenge (inline declaration) or challengeId', and constrains applicability with 'Public checker only'.

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

All TERM toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources