FlagForge MCP Server

create_event

Create a new CTF event by supplying a name, slug, and platform type. Admin role required.

Instructions

Create a new CTF event (requires admin role)

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "platform_type": "<platform_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`status`	No
`organizer`	No
`description`	No
`flag_pattern`	No
`platform_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the admin requirement and the fact that a new event is created, but it omits side effects, defaults, validation behavior, and response details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The admin-role requirement is usefully added rather than buried or omitted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent still lacks guidance on defaults, parameter meaning, uniqueness constraints, or what happens on success.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 7 parameters or the 3 required ones. It adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw property names, enums, and patterns already present in the schema.

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 clearly names the action ('Create'), the resource ('new CTF event'), and includes an important access condition (admin role). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on challenges, evidence, and artifacts.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when creating a new CTF event, and it notes the admin-role prerequisite. It does not explicitly call out alternatives, but no sibling tool duplicates event creation.

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