List available CTF challenges, optionally filtered by category, to quickly identify targets for security practice.
List CTF challenges.
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": "ctf_list_challenges"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'List CTF challenges,' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an active CTF connection, what the return format is, or any side effects. While the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating operation, this is implied rather than explicit.
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, grammatically complete sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though it does not repeat the tool name verbatim. For a tool this simple, the conciseness is acceptable.
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?
Given the tool has one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it. It does not explain what the output looks like, the meaning of the category parameter, or how this tool fits into the broader CTF workflow (e.g., with ctf_connect, ctf_get_challenge, ctf_scoreboard).
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 input schema defines a single optional string parameter 'category' with a default value, but the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so the agent has no clue what values to pass or how the category filter behaves. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 states a clear verb+resource pairing: 'List CTF challenges.' It accurately conveys the tool's primary function and is not a tautology like 'Process'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling CTF tools such as ctf_scoreboard or ctf_get_challenge, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, so the agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name. A clearer description would indicate that this is for browsing available challenges before selecting one with ctf_get_challenge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.