Codewars

Kata

kata

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single Codewars kata by ID or slug; returns name, description, rank (kyu), tags, languages, approval status, total completions, and satisfaction rating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id_or_slug`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Kata ID
`name`	No	Kata name
`rank`	No	Difficulty rank
`slug`	No	Kata URL slug
`tags`	No	Kata tags/categories
`stats`	No
`rankName`	No	Rank name (e.g., '8 kyu')
`createdBy`	No
`languages`	No	Available programming languages
`approvedBy`	No	Approver username
`description`	No	Kata description
`publishedAt`	No	ISO timestamp of publication
`approvedDate`	No	ISO approval date

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the return value structure (name, rank, tags, etc.) and the input format (ID or slug). No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently conveys the purpose and return fields. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers the identifier method and the key return fields, allowing an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'id_or_slug' lacks schema-level description. The description adds minimal meaning by stating 'by ID or slug', but does not clarify format, examples beyond schema examples, or constraints. More detail would be beneficial.

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 clearly states the action 'Fetch', the resource 'single Codewars kata', and the identifier method 'by ID or slug'. It also lists the return fields, making it easy to understand what the tool does. Compared to sibling tools, none are similar, so it is well-distinguished.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, usage is implicitly implied for retrieving kata details. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

All Codewars tools Inspect

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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The 4 Codewars tools (kata, user, user_authored, user_completed) are distinct, but the 31 Pipeworx tools create real overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-twins of the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping opportunity-discovery purposes. discover_tools and suggest_questions also both serve as 'what can I ask' entry points. Agents will misselect between the three ask_pipeworx variants and across the prediction-market suite.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: bare nouns (kata, user), bare verbs (forget, remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), verb_noun (validate_claim, bet_research), and noun_verb (user_authored, user_completed) all appear. Even within the small Codewars family the prefix style is inconsistent — kata and user are bare nouns while user_authored and user_completed expect a user_ prefix, and remember/recall/forget use a different verb style than the rest of the server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold for a coherent server. Worse, 31 of the 35 are Pipeworx meta-research tools unrelated to the server's namesake (Codewars), so the count is drastically inflated relative to its apparent purpose — the server presents a full finance/prediction-market/research gateway while contributing only 4 tools to its advertised domain.

Completeness2/5

The actual Codewars surface has significant gaps: kata, user, user_authored, and user_completed are purely read-only, with no solution submission, attempt/training history, leaderboard access, or kata search by difficulty/language. Meanwhile the Pipeworx side is over-complete for a server not named for it, leaving the server's stated identity under-covered with no way to perform any write operation on the Codewars platform.

Kata

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources