FlagForge MCP Server

list_challenges

Get CTF challenges for an event by ID or slug. Filter by status or category to focus on specific tasks.

Instructions

List challenges in an event (by event id or slug)

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": {
      "event": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "list_challenges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`event`	Yes	Event UUID or slug
`status`	No
`category`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, filtering semantics, or any limits. An agent gets little beyond the literal fact that challenges are listed.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the key input format efficiently.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the returned data shape, explain the optional filter parameters, or provide enough context for an agent to know what values or behavior to expect when using status and category.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for the required 'event' parameter by saying it accepts an ID or slug, but the optional 'status' and 'category' parameters remain completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'List challenges in an event'. It also clarifies the key input as 'event id or slug'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the intent is clear enough that an agent can separate it from list_events and get_challenge.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when list_events or get_challenge would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond naming the event.

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