Judge0 CE MCP Server

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.