Skip to main content
Glama

Codeforces

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,738 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds crucial context beyond those flags: live candidate routing tests, the current no-candidate state, result comparison against the stable router, and the explicit clarification that there is no fallback. This is exactly the behavioral nuance annotations cannot express.

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 three sentences with no filler: identity and scope, current live behavior, then usage instruction and an important correction about fallback. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important routing caveat appears early.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-required-parameter router with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the description supplies the missing operational details: current candidate state, relationship to the stable router, usage direction, and response-shape equivalence. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough information to invoke 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%: every parameter is documented as an alias for 'question', so the schema already carries full semantic weight. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific function: a beta universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its stable sibling by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements. The resource and behavior are explicit enough for an agent to know what invoking it does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs to use the tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and it clarifies that with no active candidate it currently matches the stable router. It does not explicitly state a 'do not use for stable/production' rule, but the comparison against the stable router and the 'experimental edge' framing make the intended context clear.

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

All Codeforces toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes Codeforces-specific tools with a large Pipeworx data toolkit. Within the Pipeworx family, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical (the beta explicitly matches the stable version today), and deep_research/discover_tools/suggest_questions also overlap as meta entry points, creating real selection hazard. An agent could easily misselect among these.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (list_subscriptions, validate_claim, resolve_entity), some use bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some are noun phrases (problemset, blog_entry_view, recent_actions). Word order also varies (contest_list vs list_subscriptions), so no consistent convention is followed.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is far too many for a server named 'Codeforces' — only 8 tools actually concern Codeforces, while the remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx/utility tools. This bloats the surface and makes the server feel unfocused, especially for an agent expecting a compact Codeforces API.

Completeness3/5

For the Codeforces domain, the core read-only API is covered (contests, standings, problems, user info/rating/status, blog entries, recent actions) but some endpoints are missing (blog comments, rated list, problem statements). The large number of extra tools does not fill these gaps and instead obscures the intended purpose.

Resources