Judge0 CE MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Judge0 CE MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables secure cloud-based execution of code across 14+ programming languages within a sandboxed environment. It supports file management, standard input/output handling, and automatic generation of visual artifacts like plots and charts.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides tools for AI agents to interact with the Orange Juice Online Judge API by managing problems and code submissions. Users can list problems, retrieve detailed descriptions, submit source code, and track submission status through natural language.51MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceWraps the Judge0 evaluation stack into a local algorithm-problem judging service that exposes seven tools to MCP clients, enabling models to browse problems, self-test against public samples, and submit solutions for full hidden-test grading. Judging parameters, submission limits, and hidden-data access are enforced server-side so models cannot bypass them.GPL 3.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceConnects LLMs to the Piston code execution engine to run code in various languages.19MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to participate in CodeChef contests by fetching problems, generating and testing solutions in a secure sandbox, and submitting answers.-
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI clients to write, run, and visually render code in a single loop, combining secure execution via Judge0/Codebox with Playwright screenshots.1-
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
Most 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.