Codeforces MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns only metadata, not the problem statement or code submission capability, providing helpful context 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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The key message is front-loaded, and every word serves a 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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but stated), the description does not need to detail return values. The tool is simple with one parameter and good annotations. The description is sufficient for a metadata retrieval 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 input schema has one parameter 'nativeId' with constraints (min/max length) but no description. The tool description does not elaborate on what 'nativeId' represents, leaving the agent to infer its meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'official metadata only'. It explicitly differentiates from what it does not do (return problem statement or submit code), effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like 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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does not do, leaving the agent without clear guidance on appropriate use cases.

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?

Description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'audited' implies manual review and 'unsupported operations' indicates listing of failures. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and the description aligns 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?

Single short sentence of 12 words that is front-loaded and conveys the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and outputs. It explicitly mentions both capabilities and unsupported operations, which is sufficient for a capabilities report.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter information needed; description does not address parameters which is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports audited capabilities and unsupported operations for the Codeforces official API. It uses specific verb 'report' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like codeforces_get_problem_metadata or 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. The description does not mention context for usage, such as initial setup or comparing with other tools.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds confusing terms ('passive transport', 'persisted') without clarifying behavior. Does not contradict 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?

Extremely concise (one sentence), but the wording is obscure and unhelpful. Structure is minimal but not clear.

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?

Despite rich annotations and no parameters, the description fails to clarify the meaning of 'passive transport' and 'schema', leaving the tool's purpose incomplete.

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 (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline 4 is appropriate; description doesn't need to add parameter info.

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 uses vague and potentially misleading terms like 'passive transport' and 'schema', obscuring the tool's purpose as a health check. The verb 'Return' is clear but the resource is ambiguous.

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 over siblings like 'codeforces_get_problem_metadata' or 'oj_capabilities'. The context signals show siblings, but the description doesn't differentiate usage.

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 no destructiveness, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the query can be an id, title, or tag, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, error handling, or other runtime behaviors. With annotations rich, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the query semantics.

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 11-word sentence, concise and front-loaded with verb and purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details on search behavior (exact vs partial match, case sensitivity, tag matching logic) and does not mention the limitation to Codeforces platform (though implied by title). Still, it covers the essential aspects.

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 description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by stating it can be an id, title, or tag. Other parameters (limit, platform, requestId, schemaVersion) are not described, but platform is a const and limit has clear bounds, so the description adequately compensates for the most ambiguous parameter.

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 explicitly states the verb 'search', the resource 'official Codeforces problem metadata', and the criteria 'by id, title, or tag', making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from the sibling 'codeforces_get_problem_metadata' which likely retrieves a single problem's details.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codeforces_get_problem_metadata', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. The context is solely implied by the description.

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