Interactive LeetCode MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

submit_solution

Submit a LeetCode solution to get acceptance status, runtime/memory stats, or failed test case details.

Instructions

Submit a solution to a LeetCode problem and get results. Returns acceptance status, runtime/memory stats, or failed test case details. When LEETCODE_MCP_STRICT_MODE=1 is set, requires run_local_tests to have last passed for the problem first — saves real LeetCode submissions for solutions that pass examples locally.

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": {
      "problemSlug": "<problemSlug>",
      "code": "<code>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "submit_solution"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	The solution code to submit
`language`	Yes	Programming language for the solution
`problemSlug`	Yes	The problem slug (e.g., "two-sum")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.4Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return types and strict mode behavior, but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., submission being permanent). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no extraneous words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the return value and strict mode constraint. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or LeetCode submission limits, but overall it is fairly complete for a submission tool with no output 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters (code, language, problemSlug) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific action ('Submit a solution'), the resource ('LeetCode problem'), and the expected results ('acceptance status, runtime/memory stats, or failed test case details'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_local_tests' and 'get_problem_solution'.

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?

The description provides a clear usage condition: in strict mode, 'run_local_tests' must pass first. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond 'run_local_tests', leaving some guidance implicit.

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