Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hackyeaster-solver

hackyeaster-solver

by cloudwarriors-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

he_fetch_challenge

Retrieve and parse a HackyEaster challenge page, extracting title, description, hints, code blocks, images, and links to aid in solving CTF challenges.

Instructions

Fetch a specific challenge page and return parsed content: title, description, hints, code blocks, images, links.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "he_fetch_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe challenge page URL
dynamicNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that it returns parsed content but omits behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, or the effect of the dynamic parameter.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and listing returned content concisely. Every word is necessary, no superfluous text.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description specifies returned fields well. However, the 'dynamic' parameter is not addressed, and error behavior is missing, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The schema describes 'url' (50% coverage), but the description adds no extra meaning. The 'dynamic' parameter remains unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states it 'Fetch a specific challenge page and return parsed content' and lists the exact returned fields (title, description, hints, code blocks, images, links), distinguishing it from siblings like he_fetch_raw.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., he_fetch_raw). It implies usage for fetching parsed challenge content, but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools