Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-kaggle-tool

mcp-kaggle-tool

by MikeyBeez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

kaggle_list_competitions

List Kaggle competitions filtered by group, category, and sorting criteria to find relevant data science challenges.

Instructions

List Kaggle competitions

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kaggle_list_competitions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupNoCompetition group (general, entered, inClass)general
categoryNoCompetition category (all, featured, research, recruitment, gettingStarted, masters, playground)all
sortByNoSort by (grouped, prize, earliestDeadline, latestDeadline, numberOfTeams, recentlyCreated)recentlyCreated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the listing is exhaustive. For a tool that likely returns a list, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could be improved by front-loading key details. The brevity earns its place but does not enhance the tool's usability.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description lacks any information about the tool's output (e.g., returns a list of competition objects with fields), which is critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. Missing output schema and behavioral details make the description incomplete.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 action 'List' and resource 'Kaggle competitions', providing a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like kaggle_search_datasets, which could be confused for a similar competition listing operation.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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