Page through a problem's solutions (with their comments) without re-fetching the problem text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | solutions per page (default 10, max 50) | |
| order | No | top (default: accepted first, then score), oldest or newest | |
| offset | No | solutions to skip; use next_offset from the previous page | |
| max_chars | No | max characters per solution body (default 20000, -1 = no limit) | |
| problem_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / max_charsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "max characters per solution body (default 20000, -1 = no limit)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them by disclosing that comments are bundled into results and that problem text is excluded, but says nothing about ordering volatility or response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core action and immediately qualifying what is and is not returned. Every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and five parameters, the description should say more about the return payload — it never mentions offsets/next_offset being handed back or the default ordering behavior, despite the schema hinting at both. It is adequate for a list tool but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents limit, order, offset, and max_chars in detail; the description adds no parameter-level information. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Page through a problem's solutions') and adds two distinguishing facts: results include comments and the problem text is not re-fetched, which implicitly separates it from get_problem. It stops short of naming sibling tools explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the pagination framing and the 'without re-fetching the problem text' clause, which hints this is the lighter alternative to get_problem. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.