Compile and run C++ code with custom input, time and memory limits, and optional expected-output checks for competitive programming practice and testing.
编译并运行C++代码
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | C++源代码 | |
| input | Yes | 输入数据 | |
| filename | No | 文件名（可选） | |
| time_limit | No | 时间限制（毫秒） | |
| memory_limit | No | 内存限制（MB） | |
| expected_output | No | 预期输出（可选） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about sandboxing, execution limits, error handling for compilation failures, or what is returned (stdout, stderr, exit code), beyond the bare implication that code executes.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is very terse for a six-parameter execution tool, but that is a completeness gap rather than verbosity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters including limits and expected_output, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns, how failures are reported, or how expected_output interacts with the run.
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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond those field labels, which is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
The description names a specific verb pair plus resource (compile and run C++ code), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as debug_with_gdb or explain the role of expected_output versus compare_outputs, leaving routing to inference.
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 is given about when to use this tool rather than debug_with_gdb, compare_outputs, or read_test_case. There is no mention of preconditions, whether expected_output triggers comparison, or when to prefer the debugging sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.