Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hackyeaster-solver

hackyeaster-solver

by cloudwarriors-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

he_submit_flag

Submit a flag for a HackyEaster challenge and receive instant validation: accepted, rejected, or already solved.

Instructions

Submit a flag for a challenge via the authenticated HackyEaster API. POSTs to /app/rest/user/challenge/{id}/checkflag. Returns the API response (accepted/rejected/already-solved).

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>",
      "flag": "<flag>"
    },
    "name": "he_submit_flag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flagYesThe flag string to submit, e.g. he2026{abc123}
challenge_idYesNumeric or slug challenge ID as used in the HackyEaster URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It reveals mutation (POST), response types, and idempotency (already-solved). However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key info, no fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple 2-param submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and response. Minor gaps (auth method, error handling) but overall sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds example flag format and clarifies challenge_id as numeric or slug, adding value beyond schema.

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 the action ('Submit a flag'), the resource ('for a challenge'), the API endpoint, and the expected response types. It distinguishes from siblings like he_validate_flag by specifying it's for submission via API.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., he_validate_flag for local validation). No mention of prerequisites like authentication 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools