Repovive MCP Server

Push a full problem into a draft

repovive_build_push_problem

Idempotent

Add problem metadata, statement, and optionally test cases to an existing draft. Test cases are appended to the draft's current content.

Instructions

Write a problem object into an existing draft: metadata, statement and (optionally) test cases. Test cases are APPENDED to whatever the draft already holds. For a complete import that also clears old cases and uploads the reference solution, editorial and validator, use repovive_build_author_complete_problem.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "problem_json": "<problem_json>"
    },
    "name": "repovive_build_push_problem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`session_id`	Yes	Build session id to write into
`problem_json`	Yes	A problem object (as produced by repovive_generate_problem or matching repovive_new_problem_template) to write into the draft.
`include_testcases`	No	Also upload the problem's test cases

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description says test cases are appended to whatever the draft already holds, implying repeated identical calls would keep adding test cases and thus change state. This contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation, which states the operation is idempotent. No other behavioral context is added beyond that, and the contradiction is severe.

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?

The description is only two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence to point to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description gives the main behavior and a clear pointer to the alternative, and the output schema exists to clarify returns. However, the idempotency contradiction is unresolved, and the description does not clarify whether metadata and statement are overwritten or merged when writing into an existing draft, leaving an important usage gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only minimal context by noting problem_json contains metadata, statement, and optionally test cases, which mostly overlaps with the schema description and does not significantly deepen parameter understanding.

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 'Write a problem object into an existing draft' and enumerates the components: metadata, statement, and optionally test cases. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool repovive_build_author_complete_problem by naming what that tool does instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool versus the alternative: it appends test cases, and for a complete import that clears old cases and uploads reference solution, editorial, and validator, the agent should use repovive_build_author_complete_problem. This gives clear when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server