LeetCode의 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버는 AI 어시스턴트가 LeetCode 문제, 사용자 정보 및 경연 대회 데이터에 액세스할 수 있도록 해줍니다.
🚀 LeetCode API에 빠르게 액세스
🔍 문제 검색, 일일 챌린지 검색, 사용자 프로필 확인
🏆 콘테스트 데이터 및 순위 조회
🧩 MCP 도구 및 리소스에 대한 전체 지원
📦 CLI와 프로그래밍 가능한 API를 모두 제공합니다
Related MCP server: LeetCode MCP Server
지엑스피1
설치가 완료되면 명령줄에서 직접 실행할 수 있습니다.
mcp-server-leetcodenpm install @mcpfun/mcp-server-leetcodeClaude for Desktop claude_desktop_config.json 파일에 다음을 추가하세요.
{
"mcpServers": {
"leetcode": {
"command": "mcp-server-leetcode"
}
}
}지역 개발을 위해:
{
"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'
});도구 이름 | 설명 | 매개변수 |
| 매일의 도전에 참여하세요 | 없음 |
| 특정 문제에 대한 세부 정보 얻기 |
|
| 기준에 따른 문제 검색 |
|
도구 이름 | 설명 | 매개변수 |
| 사용자 정보 가져오기 |
|
| 사용자 제출 내역 가져오기 |
|
| 사용자 콘테스트 순위를 받으세요 |
|
도구 이름 | 설명 | 매개변수 |
| 경연대회 세부 정보 받기 |
|
leetcode://daily-challenge : 일일 챌린지
leetcode://problem/{titleSlug} : 문제 세부 정보
leetcode://problems{?tags,difficulty,limit,skip} : 문제 목록
leetcode://user/{username}/profile : 사용자 프로필
leetcode://user/{username}/submissions{?limit} : 사용자 제출
leetcode://user/{username}/contest-ranking : 사용자 콘테스트 순위
저장소를 복제하고 종속성을 설치합니다.
git clone https://github.com/doggybee/mcp-server-leetcode.git
cd mcp-server-leetcode
npm install개발 모드에서 실행:
npm run dev프로젝트를 빌드하세요:
npm run buildMIT
모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 - MCP 사양 및 문서
데스크톱용 Claude - MCP 지원 AI 어시스턴트
이 프로젝트는 alfa-leetcode-api 에서 영감을 받았습니다.
| 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.
