Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hackyeaster-solver

hackyeaster-solver

by cloudwarriors-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

he_log_attempt

Record a challenge solve attempt by logging the answer, correctness, and notes.

Instructions

Record a solve attempt for a challenge. Tracks answer, correctness, and notes.

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>",
      "answer": "<answer>",
      "correct": "<correct>"
    },
    "name": "he_log_attempt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNo
answerYes
correctYes
challenge_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions recording attempts but omits side effects (e.g., updates progress, requires authentication), idempotency, or state changes. The description is too brief for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, no wasted words. Could list key parameters for clarity, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a simple logging tool, but lacks detail on return values, success/failure behavior, and interaction with other tools. Given 4 parameters and no output schema, more context would help.

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%, but the description mentions 'answer, correctness, and notes,' which map to answer, correct, and notes parameters. However, challenge_id is undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation, but not fully informative.

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 records a solve attempt for a challenge, tracking answer, correctness, and notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like he_submit_flag (submitting flags) and he_validate_flag (checking validity).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for logging attempts, but does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or suggest sibling tools for other actions.

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