Add a LeetCode problem to the Interview Coach database using its ID, title, and difficulty to track and organize interview practice.
Add a new leetcode problem inn the Interview Coach Database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| topic | No | ||
| difficulty | Yes | ||
| leetcode_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that a record is created; it says nothing about uniqueness of leetcode_id, duplicate handling, required permissions, or whether an existing entry is overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no space, but it contains a typo ('inn') and is too thin to be considered well-structured for a 4-parameter mutation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a write operation with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves out the behavioral and input details an agent needs to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for leetcode_id, title, difficulty, or topic (e.g., allowed difficulty values, whether topic is free text). With a low-coverage schema the description must compensate, and it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('leetcode problem') into a named database, so the agent knows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_problem or log_attempt, but the create-vs-query distinction is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_problem, nor any prerequisite (e.g., check for duplicates first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.