AI アシスタントが LeetCode の問題、ユーザー情報、コンテスト データにアクセスできるようにする、LeetCode 用のモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー。
🚀 LeetCode APIへの高速アクセス
🔍 問題を検索し、毎日の課題を取得し、ユーザープロフィールを確認します
🏆 クエリコンテストデータとランキング
🧩 MCPツールとリソースの完全サポート
📦 CLIとプログラム可能なAPIの両方を提供
Related MCP server: LeetCode MCP Server
npm install -g @mcpfun/mcp-server-leetcodeインストールしたら、コマンドラインから直接実行できます。
mcp-server-leetcodenpm install @mcpfun/mcp-server-leetcodeClaude for Desktop のclaude_desktop_config.jsonファイルに以下を追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"leetcode": {
"command": "mcp-server-leetcode"
}
}
}地域開発の場合:
{
"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'
});ツール名 | 説明 | パラメータ |
| 毎日のチャレンジに挑戦 | なし |
| 特定の問題の詳細を取得する |
|
| 基準に基づいて問題を検索する |
|
ツール名 | 説明 | パラメータ |
| ユーザー情報を取得する |
|
| ユーザーの投稿履歴を取得する |
|
| ユーザーコンテストランキングを取得する |
|
ツール名 | 説明 | パラメータ |
| コンテストの詳細を見る |
|
leetcode://daily-challenge : デイリーチャレンジ
leetcode://problem/{titleSlug} : 問題の詳細
leetcode://problems{?tags,difficulty,limit,skip} : 問題リスト
leetcode://user/{username}/profile : ユーザープロフィール
leetcode://user/{username}/submissions{?limit} : ユーザーの投稿
leetcode://user/{username}/contest-ranking : ユーザーコンテストランキング
リポジトリをクローンし、依存関係をインストールします。
git clone https://github.com/doggybee/mcp-server-leetcode.git
cd mcp-server-leetcode
npm install開発モードで実行:
npm run devプロジェクトをビルドします。
npm run buildマサチューセッツ工科大学
モデルコンテキストプロトコル- MCP 仕様とドキュメント
Claude for Desktop - MCPサポート付きAIアシスタント
このプロジェクトはalfa-leetcode-apiに触発されました
| 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0get-daily-challenge1 field changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseget-contest-detailsget-daily-challengeget-problemget-user-contest-rankingget-user-profileget-user-submissionssearch-problemsScored across 7 tools
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.
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 that lets your AI assistant build and deploy apps, hosting each one at a live URL.
