luogu-mcp-server

Search Luogu Problems

luogu_search_problems

Read-only

Search Luogu problems by keyword, topic, or partial title. Find problems to fetch details after specifying optional tags and page.

Instructions

Search Luogu problems by keyword. Use this before fetching a problem when you only know a topic or partial title.

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "luogu_search_problems"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keyword`	Yes	Keyword, topic, title fragment, or problem id.
`page`	No	Luogu list page, starting from 1.
`limit`	No	Maximum returned items.
`tagIds`	No	Optional Luogu tag ids to narrow topic search, such as [11] for tree-related searches.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Search' is consistent. No additional behaviors (e.g., pagination details, rate limits) are disclosed. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a search tool with well-described parameters and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about the output format, but that is often implicit for search tools. Given the complexity and sibling tools, it provides sufficient context for agent decision-making.

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%, with all parameters already described in the schema. The description does not add any new details about parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Search', resource 'Luogu problems', and mechanism 'by keyword'. The description also distinguishes from fetching by specifying 'Use this before fetching a problem when you only know a topic or partial title.' This differentiates it from siblings like luogu_fetch_problem.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you only know a topic or partial title') and implies a sequence: search then fetch. It doesn't name specific sibling tools, but the sibling context is clear from the tool list. Provides good guidance without being overly prescriptive.

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

Deploy Server