Retrieve complete attempt history for a specific LeetCode problem to review past solutions, track progress, and identify recurring mistakes for interview preparation.
This tool will retrieve complete attempt history for a Leetcode Problem
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'retrieve complete attempt history' — no mention of permissions, pagination, ordering, or what 'complete' means. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
One efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No waste, though it could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
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. However, with no annotations and no usage differentiation from siblings, the description is incomplete for an agent to know when to select this tool over alternatives.
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% for the single leetcode_id parameter, but the parameter is intuitive (an integer identifying the problem) and the description implies its role. Baseline for 1 parameter without schema docs is moderate; description doesn't add format constraints but the parameter is self-evident.
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 (retrieve) and resource (complete attempt history for a Leetcode Problem). Clear enough that an agent knows what it does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_recent_attempts.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_recent_attempts or other attempt-history siblings. The description implies full history vs. recent, but doesn't make that distinction explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.