Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Judge0 CE MCP Server run this Python code: print('Hello, World!')"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
用于访问 Judge0 Ce API 的 MCP 服务器。
EMCP 是一个强大的 MCP 服务器管理平台，让您无需手动配置即可快速使用各种 MCP 服务器！
🌐 访问 EMCP 平台
📝 注册并登录账号
🎯 进入 MCP 广场，浏览所有可用的 MCP 服务器
🔍 搜索或找到本服务器（bach-judge0_ce）
🎉 点击 "安装 MCP" 按钮
✅ 完成！即可在您的应用中使用
✨ 零配置：无需手动编辑配置文件
🎨 可视化管理：图形界面轻松管理所有 MCP 服务器
🔐 安全可靠：统一管理 API 密钥和认证信息
🚀 一键安装：MCP 广场提供丰富的服务器选择
📊 使用统计：实时查看服务调用情况
立即访问 EMCP 平台 开始您的 MCP 之旅！
Related MCP server: Online Judge MCP Server
这是一个 MCP 服务器，用于访问 Judge0 Ce API。
PyPI 包名: bach-judge0_ce
版本: 1.0.0
传输协议: stdio
pip install bach-judge0_cepip install -e .# 运行（uvx 会自动安装并运行）
uvx --from bach-judge0_ce bach_judge0_ce
# 或指定版本
uvx --from bach-judge0_ce@latest bach_judge0_cepython server.py# 安装
pip install bach-judge0_ce
# 运行（命令名使用下划线）
bach_judge0_ce此 API 需要认证。请设置环境变量:
export API_KEY="your_api_key_here"变量名 | 说明 | 必需 |
| API 密钥 | 是 |
| 不适用 | 否 |
| 不适用 | 否 |
编辑 Cursor MCP 配置文件 ~/.cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bach-judge0_ce": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "bach-judge0_ce", "bach_judge0_ce"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}编辑 Claude Desktop 配置文件 claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bach-judge0_ce": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "bach-judge0_ce", "bach_judge0_ce"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}此服务器提供以下工具:
aboutGet general information.
端点: GET /about
create_a_batched_submissionCreate multiple submissions at once.
端点: POST /submissions/batch
参数:
base64_encoded (string): Example value:
get_a_batched_submissionGet multiple submissions at once.
端点: GET /submissions/batch
参数:
tokens (string) 必需: Example value: dce7bbc5-a8c9-4159-a28f-ac264e48c371,1ed737ca-ee34-454d-a06f-bbc73836473e,9670af73-519f-4136-869c-340086d406db
base64_encoded (string): Example value:
fields (string): Return only the desired submission attributes. The default value for the fields parameter is stdout,time,memory,stderr,token,compile_output,message,status. Use * to receive all available attributes.
get_a_languageGet a language.
端点: GET /languages/{id}
参数:
id (string) 必需: Example value: 52
get_a_submissionGet submission.
端点: GET /submissions/{token}
参数:
base64_encoded (string): Example value:
fields (string): Return only the desired submission attributes. The default value for the fields parameter is stdout,time,memory,stderr,token,compile_output,message,status. Use * to receive all available attributes.
token (string) 必需: Example value: 2e979232-92fd-4012-97cf-3e9177257d10
get_configurationConfiguration information gives you detailed information about the configuration of Judge0.
端点: GET /config_info
get_languagesGet active languages.
端点: GET /languages
get_statusesGet statuses.
端点: GET /statuses
create_a_submissionCreates new submission. Created submission waits in queue to be processed. On successful creation, you are returned a submission token which can be used to check submission status.
端点: POST /submissions
参数:
base64_encoded (string): Example value:
wait (string): Example value:
fields (string): Return only the desired submission attributes. The default value for the fields parameter is stdout,time,memory,stderr,token,compile_output,message,status. Use * to receive all available attributes.
传输协议: stdio
HTTP 客户端: httpx
MIT License - 详见 LICENSE 文件。
此服务器由 API-to-MCP 工具生成。
版本: 1.0.0
Get general information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get general information', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Get general information'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is efficient and appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on what 'general information' entails, how it differs from siblings, or what the response includes. Without annotations or output schema, more detail is needed for adequate understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get general information' states a basic purpose with a clear verb ('Get') and object ('general information'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_configuration' or 'get_statuses', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for system metadata, user info, or other general data. With siblings like 'get_configuration', users lack direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create multiple submissions at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base64_encoded | No | Example value: |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this is a write operation (implied by 'create'), rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure, which is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the single parameter 'base64_encoded'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain what the base64 data represents or how it relates to creating multiple submissions, but baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create multiple submissions at once' clearly states the action (create) and resource (submissions) with a scope modifier (multiple, at once). However, it doesn't distinguish from its sibling 'create_a_submission' beyond the batch aspect, leaving ambiguity about when batch creation is preferred over single creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'create_a_submission' or other alternatives. The description implies batch capability but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., efficiency, bulk processing) or prerequisites, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates new submission. Created submission waits in queue to be processed. On successful creation, you are returned a submission token which can be used to check submission status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base64_encoded | No | Example value: | |
| wait | No | Example value: | |
| fields | No | Return only the desired submission attributes. The default value for the fields parameter is stdout,time,memory,stderr,token,compile_output,message,status. Use * to receive all available attributes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the submission enters a queue for processing (implying asynchronous operation) and returns a token for status checking. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'successful creation' entails beyond token return.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured into two clear sentences: one for creation and queue behavior, and another for the return value. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the token explanation more tightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the asynchronous nature and token return. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and mutation behavior, it lacks details on input constraints, output format beyond the token, and error cases, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that 'base64_encoded' might relate to submission content and 'wait' to processing behavior, but this is inferred rather than stated. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('creates new submission') and resource ('submission'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_a_submission' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what type of submission (e.g., code, form, data) or to what system, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that the created submission 'waits in queue to be processed,' which implies usage in asynchronous processing contexts, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_a_batched_submission' or prerequisites for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get multiple submissions at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokens | Yes | Example value: dce7bbc5-a8c9-4159-a28f-ac264e48c371,1ed737ca-ee34-454d-a06f-bbc73836473e,9670af73-519f-4136-869c-340086d406db | |
| base64_encoded | No | Example value: | |
| fields | No | Return only the desired submission attributes. The default value for the fields parameter is stdout,time,memory,stderr,token,compile_output,message,status. Use * to receive all available attributes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if tokens are invalid. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get multiple submissions at once.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure), error cases, and behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for 'tokens', 'base64_encoded', and 'fields' (including default values and usage). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add further meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get multiple submissions at once' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('submissions'), with 'multiple' and 'at once' specifying the batch operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_a_submission' (singular) and 'create_a_batched_submission' (creation vs. retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'submissions' are (e.g., code submissions, forms), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing tokens from prior submissions), compare it to 'get_a_submission' for single submissions, or indicate scenarios where batching is beneficial (e.g., efficiency). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Example value: 52 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what happens on failure, or what the return format might be. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is so minimal that it fails to convey necessary information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance to an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides almost no meaningful information, this description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably retrieves specific language data based on an ID, the description should explain what constitutes a 'language' in this system, what information is returned, and how this differs from the sibling 'get_languages' tool. The current description leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as requiring a string value with an example. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a language' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'language' refers to in this context (programming language, natural language, configuration language) or what 'get' entails (retrieve details, fetch metadata, download resources). While it uses a verb+resource structure, it lacks the differentiation needed to understand what this tool actually does compared to its sibling 'get_languages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_languages' tool, which appears to retrieve multiple languages, nor does it explain when to use this single-language retrieval versus batch operations like 'get_a_batched_submission'. There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get submission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base64_encoded | No | Example value: | |
| fields | No | Return only the desired submission attributes. The default value for the fields parameter is stdout,time,memory,stderr,token,compile_output,message,status. Use * to receive all available attributes. | |
| token | Yes | Example value: 2e979232-92fd-4012-97cf-3e9177257d10 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get submission' implies a read-only operation but fails to specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. It offers minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information and fails to earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name, making it ineffective despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'submission' entails, what data is returned, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's functionality and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The schema adequately describes the three parameters (token, fields, base64_encoded), so the description's lack of param details is acceptable but not additive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get submission' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates a retrieval action, it lacks specificity about what kind of submission (e.g., code submission, form submission) and provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_a_batched_submission' or 'create_a_submission'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_a_batched_submission' or 'get_statuses', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Configuration information gives you detailed information about the configuration of Judge0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it 'gives you detailed information,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if configuration is unavailable. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what the configuration information includes (e.g., settings, versions, limits) or how it's structured, which would help an agent use it effectively. For a simple read tool, it's passable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and a baseline score of 4 is applied as it doesn't add unnecessary information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides 'detailed information about the configuration of Judge0,' which clarifies it's a read operation for configuration data. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific configuration information is returned and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'about' or 'get_statuses,' which might also provide system information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'about' (which might give general system info) or 'get_statuses' (which might provide status-related configuration).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get active languages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get active languages' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results return, if there are rate limits, or how 'active' is defined. The description is too minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Get active languages' is maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'active languages' means in this context, how results are structured, or how this differs from other language tools. The agent lacks necessary context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for zero parameters is appropriately set at 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get active languages' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('active languages'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_a_language' or explain what distinguishes 'active languages' from other language-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_a_language' or 'get_configuration'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between available language-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get statuses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get statuses' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what rate limits apply, what format the output takes, or any side effects. It fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the minimal implication of retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get statuses.'), which could be efficient if it were informative, but here it's under-specified rather than appropriately brief. It's front-loaded in the sense that it's only one sentence, but that sentence fails to convey necessary information, making it feel incomplete rather than well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely retrieves status information. It doesn't explain what 'statuses' refer to, what the return values might be, or any behavioral traits. While the parameter situation is simple (0 params), the overall context demands more clarity about the tool's purpose and output to be useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, so it meets the baseline expectation. While it doesn't add parameter-specific details (as there are none), it doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get statuses' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_statuses' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what kind of statuses (submission statuses? system statuses?), what resource they belong to, or what scope is involved. While it includes a verb ('Get'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_a_submission' or 'get_a_batched_submission'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no contextual hints, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., whether this retrieves statuses for submissions, batches, or something else). The agent receives no help in determining appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0aboutcreate_a_batched_submissioncreate_a_submissionget_a_batched_submissionget_a_languageget_a_submissionget_configurationget_languagesget_statusesMost tools have distinct purposes, such as create_a_submission vs. get_a_submission, but there is some potential confusion between get_a_batched_submission and get_a_submission, as the batched version could be seen as an extension rather than a completely separate function. Overall, the descriptions help clarify the differences, but the overlap in retrieval operations for single vs. batched submissions might cause minor misselection.
The naming follows a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern, such as create_a_submission and get_a_submission, with minor deviations like about and get_configuration that use simpler forms. All tools use snake_case, which maintains readability, but the slight variation in verb usage (e.g., 'get' vs. 'create') and the inclusion of articles like 'a' in some names (e.g., get_a_submission) versus others (e.g., get_languages) shows a small inconsistency.
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Judge0 server, covering key operations like creating and retrieving submissions, managing languages, and accessing configuration. Each tool appears to earn its place by addressing specific needs in code execution and submission management, without feeling overly sparse or bloated.
The tool set provides good coverage for the Judge0 domain, including CRUD-like operations for submissions (create and get) and support for languages and statuses. However, there are minor gaps, such as no explicit update or delete tools for submissions, which might limit full lifecycle management, but agents can likely work around this by re-creating submissions as needed.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Build Apps and run code in 30 languages — sandboxed, with persistent sessions for agent loops.
Execute code in 8 languages (Python, JS, TS, Go, Java, C++, C, Bash) in gVisor sandboxes.
Access the GitHub API, enabling file operations, repository management, search functionality, and…
Code intelligence for coding agents: semantic, AST, graph, and full-text search. 279+ languages.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/judge0_ce'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
