Get CTF events with challenge and solved counts to find active competitions and assess their progress.
List CTF events with challenge/solved counts
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_events"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'with challenge/solved counts' hints at the return content, but the description does not disclose ordering, pagination, filtering, authentication, or potential edge cases. For a simple zero-parameter list, this is adequate but still leaves room for clarification.
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 sentence with no redundancy. The action ('List'), resource ('CTF events'), and relevant output detail ('challenge/solved counts') are all front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and a key part of the return value. It is missing explicit notes on read-only behavior, default ordering, or whether all events or only upcoming ones are returned, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what is already evident from the empty input schema. The absence of parameters makes this dimension trivially satisfied, matching the baseline of 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CTF events') and adds a distinct detail ('with challenge/solved counts'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_challenges, which lists challenges instead of events, and create_event, which creates rather than lists.
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?
The intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer it is for listing events rather than challenges, but the description does not state direct conditions or mention siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.