Judge0 CE MCP Server

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.