Skip to main content
Glama

Codeforces

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

User Rating

user_rating
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full rating history for a user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoArray of rating change objects
statusYesResponse status (OK or FAILED)
commentNoError comment (if status is FAILED)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "handle": "tourist"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "comment": {
+      "description": "Error comment (if status is FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Array of rating change objects",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "contestId": {
+            "description": "Contest ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "contestName": {
+            "description": "Contest name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "handle": {
+            "description": "User handle",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "newRating": {
+            "description": "Rating after contest",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "oldRating": {
+            "description": "Rating before contest",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rank": {
+            "description": "Rank in contest",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "ratingUpdateTimeSeconds": {
+            "description": "Unix timestamp of rating update",
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Response status (OK or FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of returning 'full rating history' aligns with safe, idempotent behavior. It adds no further details (e.g., pagination, data freshness), which keeps it minimally adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (6 words), which is concise, but it omits potentially helpful details like parameter explanation or output summary. It earns its place but could be more informative without losing brevity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description provides a minimal but acceptable overview. However, it lacks usage context and parameter details, making it barely complete for effective agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention the 'handle' parameter or its meaning. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description should at least clarify that 'handle' identifies the user. The schema example 'tourist' helps, but the description itself adds no parameter semantics.

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 clearly states it returns 'Full rating history for a user', which is specific and includes the resource (rating history) and action (retrieving). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, many of which are unrelated; still, the purpose is clear enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description provides no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources