User Solved
user_solvedRead-onlyIdempotent
Solved counts by difficulty.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matchedUser | No |
Leetcode
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed2 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[ + { + "username": "john_doe" + } +] - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "properties": { + "matchedUser": { + "properties": { + "submitStats": { + "properties": { + "acSubmissionNum": { + "description": "Accepted submissions by difficulty", + "items": { + "properties": { + "count": { + "description": "Number of accepted submissions", + "type": "number" + }, + "difficulty": { + "description": "Difficulty level (Easy, Medium, Hard)", + "type": "string" + }, + "submissions": { + "description": "Total submission attempts", + "type": "number" + } + }, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "totalSubmissionNum": { + "description": "Total submissions by difficulty", + "items": { + "properties": { + "count": { + "description": "Total submission count", + "type": "number" + }, + "difficulty": { + "description": "Difficulty level", + "type": "string" + }, + "submissions": { + "description": "Total attempts", + "type": "number" + } + }, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "type": "object" +}
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds that the output is counts by difficulty, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any side effects beyond what annotations cover. The behavioral context is minimal but not contradictory.
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 extremely concise at three words. While there is no waste, the brevity sacrifices clarity. A balance between conciseness and informativeness is not achieved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description still lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'solved counts' encompasses (e.g., total solved, per difficulty breakdown) or how to interpret the output. An agent would need to infer too much from the tool name alone.
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 single parameter 'username' has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain how the username should be provided or what it represents (e.g., platform-specific username). Without schema details, the description should clarify the parameter meaning, but it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'Solved counts by difficulty.' It suggests the tool returns counts of solved items grouped by difficulty, but it does not explicitly mention that it is per user or what platform. The parameter 'username' implies user-specific data, but the description fails to clarify the resource being queried. It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'user_recent_submissions' but lacks specificity.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'user_profile' or 'problemset_stats'. Agents have no guidance on context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve the same lookup purpose, and there are six different Polymarket tools with similar names and functions. The inclusion of a large unrelated data platform alongside a few LeetCode tools makes selection additionally confusing.
Naming Consistency4/5
Almost all tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, list_subscriptions, etc.). Minor exceptions like 'problem' and 'daily_question' are still readable and don't break the overall predictability.
Tool Count2/5
37 tools is far too many for a server named 'Leetcode' — the vast majority are unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory tools. Even as a general data server the count is heavy, and for the apparent LeetCode purpose it is severely over-scoped.
Completeness2/5
The LeetCode-specific tools cover basic user stats and problem details but lack problem listing/search, submissions, or any interaction beyond read-only queries. The Pipeworx side is extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, so the core domain has significant gaps.