FlagForge MCP Server

claim_challenge

Claim exclusive ownership of a CTF challenge by locking it to your agent for a 15-minute lease. Prevents conflicts when multiple agents work on live event challenges.

Instructions

Lock a challenge to this agent (15-min lease; 409 if someone else holds it)

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": {
      "challenge_id": "<challenge_id>"
    },
    "name": "claim_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`challenge_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the 15-minute lease and the 409 conflict response. It does not cover success return values, re-claiming by the same agent, or expiration details, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the lease duration and error condition appended in parentheses. Every word adds useful information and there is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description captures the essential contract: what is locked, for how long, to whom, and what happens if another agent holds it. Minor gaps like the success response and same-agent re-claim behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe challenge_id, but the phrase 'a challenge' and the lock/lease semantics make the parameter's purpose inferable. The single required UUID parameter is self-explanatory enough that the lack of explicit parameter documentation is not severely harmful.

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 names a specific verb ('Lock'), a clear resource ('a challenge'), and the scope ('to this agent'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like release_challenge or get_challenge. The 15-minute lease and 409 condition further pin down what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the tool for acquiring an exclusive, time-limited lock on a challenge, and the 409 clause warns against claiming when another agent already holds it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with release_challenge or state when claiming is required versus optional.

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