Codeforces MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces that it does not return problem statements or submit code, but adds no new behavioral context beyond annotations. No 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 very concise with two sentences. However, it could have included parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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?

Given low complexity (one parameter, no enums) but 0% schema coverage, the description should explain what metadata is returned, but does not. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the nativeId parameter or its purpose. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's length constraints, which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 retrieves official metadata and explicitly says what it does not do (return problem statement or submit code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oj_search_problems, though it does not name them directly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oj_search_problems or oj_capabilities. The negative constraints are mentioned but no context for selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no need to restate. The description adds that the tool reports both capabilities and unsupported operations, providing clear behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and contains no redundant 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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose. It is complete for a capabilities-reporting tool.

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?

No parameters exist, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, meeting expectations.

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 it reports audited capabilities and unsupported operations, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like codeforces_get_problem_metadata and oj_search_problems.

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 implies usage for checking supported/unsupported Codeforces API operations. It lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but given the sibling tools cover different areas, context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations; the phrase 'passive transport' is confusing and does not clarify behavior.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is not clear. It uses jargon without explanation, making it less effective than a clear, straightforward statement.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description should clearly explain the return value. Instead, it mentions 'passive transport, schema, and persisted' without explaining what these mean or how they relate to health status. This is incomplete for a health-check tool.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add parameter meaning since there are none. However, the description's confusing wording could mislead about what the tool requires, so it earns a baseline 4 minus 1 for lack of clarity.

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 states 'Return passive transport, schema, and persisted Codeforces upstream health.' This uses vague jargon ('passive transport') and does not clearly explain the tool's output. The purpose of checking health is inferred but not explicitly stated, and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like '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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'codeforces_get_problem_metadata' or 'oj_search_problems'. The description provides no context for appropriate usage, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it searches by specific fields, but does not disclose behavioral traits like result format, pagination, or search behavior (e.g., fuzzy match). With good annotations, a 3 is appropriate as description adds limited context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and target. No waste, efficient. Highly concise while conveying essential purpose.

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?

Given 5 required parameters and complexity, the description is minimal. It covers basic purpose but omits details on how search works, partial vs exact match, and does not mention platform constraint. Output schema exists but description should still provide sufficient usage context.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions searching by 'id, title, or tag' implying the 'query' parameter accepts these, but does not explain other required parameters (limit, platform, requestId, schemaVersion). Some value added but insufficient for full compensation.

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 searches Codeforces problems metadata by id, title, or tag. The verb 'search' combined with specific searchable fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'codeforces_get_problem_metadata' which likely retrieves a single problem.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use, nor provides usage context or prerequisites. The description solely states what it does without usage boundaries.

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