Skip to main content
Glama

Codewars

by io.github.pipeworx-io

User

user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a Codewars user's public profile by username: honor, clan, leaderboard rank, overall language ranks, and skills.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clanNoUser's clan name
nameNoUser's display name
honorNoUser's honor points
ranksNo
skillsNoList of programming skills
usernameNoCodewars username
code_challengesNo
leaderboard_positionNoPosition on leaderboard

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds context by listing returned fields and stating 'public profile', but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or whether authentication is required (though likely not needed for public profile).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence, highly concise, no redundancy. Lists key output fields efficiently. Could be slightly improved with bullet points, but structure is adequate.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema likely defines return structure, the description covers the essential purpose and output scope. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple public fetch with full annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'username' parameter. However, it only says 'by username', offering no format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema's provided example.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and specific resource 'Codewars user's public profile', listing key fields (honor, clan, rank). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kata' (fetch kata) or 'user_completed' (completed katas).

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 implies usage (to get user profile) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. For a simple tool, this is adequate but lacks differentiation from siblings like 'user_authored' or 'resolve_entity'.

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

All Codewars 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

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.

Resources