Skip to main content
Glama
CodeDreamer06

MonkeyType MCP Server

get_leaderboard_rank

Retrieve a user's ranking on the MonkeyType leaderboard for specific language, mode, and duration parameters.

Instructions

Get user's rank on the leaderboard

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageYesLanguage for the leaderboard
modeYesMode for the leaderboard (time, words, quote, zen)
mode2YesSecondary mode parameter (e.g., 15, 60, etc.)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that calls the MonkeyType API /leaderboards/rank endpoint with provided language, mode, and mode2 parameters for the authenticated user.
    case "get_leaderboard_rank": {
      const params = {
        language: args.language,
        mode: args.mode,
        mode2: args.mode2
      };
      
      const result = await callMonkeyTypeApi('/leaderboards/rank', 'GET', apiKey, params);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema defining input parameters: language, mode, mode2.
    const GetLeaderboardRankSchema = BaseApiSchema.extend({
      language: z.string().describe("Language for the leaderboard"),
      mode: z.string().describe("Mode for the leaderboard (time, words, quote, zen)"),
      mode2: z.string().describe("Secondary mode parameter (e.g., 15, 60, etc.)")
    });
  • server.js:239-243 (registration)
    Tool registration in the listTools handler, specifying name, description, and inputSchema.
    {
      name: "get_leaderboard_rank",
      description: "Get user's rank on the leaderboard",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(GetLeaderboardRankSchema),
    },
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what user context it operates on (current user? specified user?), rate limits, or what format the rank information returns. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably accesses user-specific competitive data.

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 at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of efficient communication.

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 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'rank' means in this context (global rank? percentile?), doesn't clarify whose rank is being retrieved, and provides no context about the leaderboard system or how the parameters interact. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (language, mode, mode2) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get user's rank on the leaderboard', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_leaderboard' or 'get_daily_leaderboard', which appear to be related leaderboard operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple leaderboard-related tools available (get_leaderboard, get_daily_leaderboard, get_weekly_xp_leaderboard), there's no indication of when this specific 'rank' tool is appropriate versus those other 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