Un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) para LeetCode que permite a los asistentes de IA acceder a los problemas de LeetCode, la información del usuario y los datos del concurso.
🚀 Acceso rápido a la API de LeetCode
🔍Busca problemas, recupera desafíos diarios y consulta perfiles de usuarios
🏆 Consultar datos y clasificaciones del concurso
🧩 Soporte completo para herramientas y recursos de MCP
📦 Proporciona tanto CLI como API programable
Related MCP server: LeetCode MCP Server
npm install -g @mcpfun/mcp-server-leetcodeUna vez instalado, puedes ejecutarlo directamente desde la línea de comandos:
mcp-server-leetcodenpm install @mcpfun/mcp-server-leetcodeAgregue lo siguiente a su archivo claude_desktop_config.json de Claude for Desktop:
{
"mcpServers": {
"leetcode": {
"command": "mcp-server-leetcode"
}
}
}Para el desarrollo local:
{
"mcpServers": {
"leetcode": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}import { LeetCodeService } from '@mcpfun/mcp-server-leetcode';
// Initialize the service
const leetcodeService = new LeetCodeService();
// Get daily challenge
const dailyChallenge = await leetcodeService.getDailyChallenge();
// Search problems
const problems = await leetcodeService.searchProblems({
difficulty: 'MEDIUM',
tags: 'array+dynamic-programming'
});Nombre de la herramienta | Descripción | Parámetros |
| Consigue el desafío diario | Ninguno |
| Obtenga detalles de un problema específico |
|
| Búsqueda de problemas según criterios |
|
Nombre de la herramienta | Descripción | Parámetros |
| Obtener información del usuario |
|
| Obtener el historial de envíos del usuario |
|
| Obtener clasificaciones de concursos de usuarios |
|
Nombre de la herramienta | Descripción | Parámetros |
| Obtenga detalles del concurso |
|
leetcode://daily-challenge : Desafío diario
leetcode://problem/{titleSlug} : Detalles del problema
leetcode://problems{?tags,difficulty,limit,skip} : Lista de problemas
leetcode://user/{username}/profile : Perfil de usuario
leetcode://user/{username}/submissions{?limit} : Envíos de usuarios
leetcode://user/{username}/contest-ranking : Clasificación del concurso de usuarios
Clonar el repositorio e instalar las dependencias:
git clone https://github.com/doggybee/mcp-server-leetcode.git
cd mcp-server-leetcode
npm installEjecutar en modo de desarrollo:
npm run devConstruir el proyecto:
npm run buildInstituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT)
Protocolo de contexto de modelo : especificaciones y documentación de MCP
Claude para escritorio : asistente de IA compatible con MCP
Este proyecto se inspiró en alfa-leetcode-api
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contestSlug | Yes | The URL slug of the contest |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| titleSlug | Yes | The URL slug of the problem (e.g., 'two-sum') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | LeetCode username |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | LeetCode username |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | LeetCode username | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of submissions to return |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags to filter by, separated by '+' (e.g., 'array+dynamic-programming') | |
| difficulty | No | Difficulty level | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of problems to return | |
| skip | No | Number of problems to skip |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different LeetCode resources: contests, daily challenges, problems, user rankings, profiles, submissions, and problem search. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using kebab-case (e.g., get-contest-details, search-problems). The naming is uniform throughout with no deviations in style or convention.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a LeetCode integration, covering key areas like problem access, user data, and contests. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function without bloat.
The tool set provides comprehensive read-only coverage for LeetCode data, including problems, user profiles, contests, and submissions. A minor gap exists in write operations (e.g., submitting solutions or managing account settings), but core retrieval needs are fully met.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP server for LeadDelta — manage LinkedIn connections and CRM data via AI assistants.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/doggybee/mcp-server-leetcode'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
