Skip to main content
Glama
CodeDreamer06

MonkeyType MCP Server

get_leaderboard

Retrieve typing test leaderboards from MonkeyType by specifying language, mode, and pagination to view ranked performance data.

Instructions

Get typing test leaderboard

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageYesTarget language for the leaderboard
modeYesTyping mode for the leaderboard
mode2YesSecondary mode parameter
pageNoPage number, 0-indexed. Default 0.
pageSizeNoNumber of entries per page. Default 50, min 10, max 200.

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_leaderboard' tool. It constructs query parameters from input arguments and calls the MonkeyType API endpoint '/leaderboards' to fetch the leaderboard data.
    case "get_leaderboard": {
      const params = {
        language: args.language,
        mode: args.mode,
        mode2: args.mode2
      };
      
      if (args.page !== undefined) params.page = args.page;
      if (args.pageSize !== undefined) params.pageSize = args.pageSize;
      
      const result = await callMonkeyTypeApi('/leaderboards', 'GET', apiKey, params);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the 'get_leaderboard' tool, including language, mode, mode2, page, and pageSize with descriptions and validations.
    const GetLeaderboardSchema = BaseApiSchema.extend({
      language: z.string().describe("Target language for the leaderboard"),
      mode: z.enum(["time", "words", "quote", "custom", "zen"]).describe("Typing mode for the leaderboard"),
      mode2: z.string().describe("Secondary mode parameter"),
      page: z.number().int().min(0).optional().describe("Page number, 0-indexed. Default 0."),
      pageSize: z.number().int().min(10).max(200).optional().describe("Number of entries per page. Default 50, min 10, max 200.")
    });
  • server.js:234-238 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_leaderboard' tool in the MCP server's tool list, including name, description, and input schema reference.
    {
      name: "get_leaderboard",
      description: "Get typing test leaderboard",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(GetLeaderboardSchema),
    },
Behavior2/5

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 basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema, or what format the leaderboard data returns. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just 4 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the leaderboard contains, how results are sorted/ranked, what data format to expect, or any behavioral aspects. The agent would need to infer too much from just the parameter schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% description coverage. Since the schema thoroughly documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, constraints, and enums, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description adds no value but the schema compensates fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get typing test leaderboard' clearly states the action (get) and resource (typing test leaderboard), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_daily_leaderboard or get_weekly_xp_leaderboard. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what type of leaderboard it retrieves.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_leaderboard or get_weekly_xp_leaderboard. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between similar leaderboard tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CodeDreamer06/MonkeytypeMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server