oj_search_problemsResolve exactly one contest/task id, atcoder:contest/task id, or canonical task URL. Free-text and catalog crawling are not supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| locale | No | ||
| platform | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool resolves exactly one problem and does not support free-text, which aligns with and extends annotations 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action and exclusions without any superfluous 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?
While the presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden, the description does not explain the return format or pagination behavior, and lacks guidance on parameters like limit or locale, making it incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning for individual parameters like limit, query, locale, or requestId. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer from schema constraints alone.
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?
The description clearly states the tool resolves exact contest/task IDs, AtCoder-specific identifiers, or canonical URLs, and explicitly excludes free-text and catalog crawling. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oj_fetch_problem and oj_capabilities.
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?
The description explains what the tool does and what it does not support (no free-text or catalog crawling), but does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-to-use scenarios beyond that.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: reporting capabilities, fetching problem statements, checking health, and searching problems. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the 'oj_' prefix pattern. While one uses a verb-noun format (oj_fetch_problem) and others use nouns (oj_capabilities, oj_health) or noun-verb (oj_search_problems), the overall pattern is recognizable and consistent.
With 4 tools, the server is slightly lean but well-scoped for a read-only interface to AtCoder problems. The tools cover essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
Given the explicit focus on an audited anonymous read surface, the tools provide necessary operations: fetching, searching, health, and capabilities. Missing write operations are intentionally excluded, so the set is reasonably complete for its domain.