Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
luogu-mcp-server

luogu-mcp-server

by Kaiserunix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Resolve Luogu Problem

luogu_resolve_problem
Read-only

Resolve a Luogu problem by URL, problem ID, or keyword fragment and retrieve its full details.

Instructions

Resolve a Luogu problem from a URL, problem id, or title fragment, then fetch the problem details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "luogu_resolve_problem"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesLuogu URL, pid such as P1305, or title/keyword fragment.
maxStatementCharsNoTrim long statements for model context control.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it 'resolves and fetches' but does not contradict annotations. It adds minimal behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and inputs, no wasted words. Highly concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, so return structure is unspecified. Description says 'fetch problem details' but not what fields are returned. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is adequate but could benefit from mentioning typical output fields.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description reiterates the query parameter types (URL, pid, title fragment). This adds slight context but largely overlaps with the schema description. No new semantics for maxStatementChars beyond what schema says.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves a problem from URL, problem ID, or title fragment and fetches details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like luogu_fetch_problem (which likely fetches by exact ID) and luogu_search_problems (which is for searching).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for ambiguous or incomplete identifiers but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like luogu_fetch_problem or luogu_search_problems. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools