FlagForge MCP Server

get_challenge

Retrieve a challenge's summary, including description, status, tags, flag status, and lock owner, to see its current state.

Instructions

Get one challenge's summary: description, status, tags, flag status, lock owner

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": "get_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

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output fields (description, status, tags, flag status, lock owner), which adds value beyond the name. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor what happens for missing/invalid IDs or whether flag status is visibility-restricted.

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 concise sentence with the verb, resource, and returned fields front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently names the key returned fields and the required identifier. It omits error/not-found behavior and access controls, but these are minor for a low-complexity read operation.

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%, and the description adds little beyond 'challenge's' to explain challenge_id. However, the parameter is self-descriptive, and the schema provides a UUID format and pattern, so the minimal compensation is adequate for a single obvious parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('one challenge's summary') and enumerates the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_challenges (all challenges) and get_writeup (writeup-specific retrieval).

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?

The singular 'one challenge's' clearly implies this is for fetching a single challenge by ID, which separates it from list_challenges. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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