FlagForge MCP Server

set_challenge_status

Update a challenge's working status to track progress through triage, in-progress, blocked, solved, verified, or failed. Keeps challenge state clear for efficient CTF workflow.

Instructions

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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "set_challenge_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`challenge_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation updates working status, but it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, transition constraints, or whether any status can be set from any current state.

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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action and the allowed values, and is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and the input schema is rich with an enum and UUID format, which helps completeness. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of side effects or status transition rules, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It repeats the status enum values that already exist in the schema but adds no meaning about the challenge_id parameter or how the statuses relate to each other. The description does not clarify behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'working status', and enumerates all valid status values. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_challenge because it focuses specifically on the status field, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_challenge, claim_challenge, or release_challenge. The description implies usage but does not explain workflow context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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