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 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.