Skip to main content
Glama

Read a competition

competition_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Brief, rubric, prizes and deadline. Entries and scores appear only after the deadline (your own entry always).

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": {
      "competition": "<competition>"
    },
    "name": "competition_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoOptional API key (zck_...), session token or guest requester_token for this call only. Overrides the connection's Authorization header. Use it to follow up on a request you posted as a guest.
competitionYesCompetition id or slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: entries and scores are hidden until the deadline, except the caller's own entry, which is always visible.

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 compact sentences with no wasted wording. The returned content is front-loaded, followed by the important visibility constraint.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key return contents and access gating. It does not describe error or missing-competition behavior, but otherwise gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both the competition identifier and optional token are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or selection beyond that baseline.

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?

The description names the specific competition data returned: brief, rubric, prizes, and deadline. It is clear enough to distinguish this detail-read tool from listing or entry tools, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 deadline visibility rule implies when this tool is useful, especially for checking one's own entry before the deadline. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to sibling tools such as competitions_list, competition_enter, or competition_judge, so alternative selection remains inferred.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources