Skip to main content
Glama
kry0sc0pic

sih-mcp

by kry0sc0pic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_problem_statements

Search and filter Smart India Hackathon problem statements by query, theme, category, deadline, or idea count. Sort results to find open problems with less competition.

Instructions

Search/filter/sort problem statements.

query: free text, ranked by relevance (title weighs most; handles plurals, typos, prefixes and related words like
farming/agriculture/crop). Statements matching only some terms are included but rank lower.
organization/category/theme/department: case-insensitive substring filters (category is e.g. 'Software' or 'Hardware').
min_ideas/max_ideas: filter by number of ideas already submitted (low = less competition). Statements with closed
submissions have no count (ideas is null, closed is true): they are excluded by these filters and sorted last when sorting by ideas.
open_only: exclude statements whose deadline has passed.
deadline_from/deadline_to: inclusive ISO dates (YYYY-MM-DD) bounding the idea-submission deadline.
sort: relevance (default with a query), ps_number (default otherwise), title, organization, category, theme, ideas, deadline.
include_closed: closed statements (submissions closed, no idea count) are hidden by default; when included they
always come after open ones. closed_hidden in the result says how many were left out.
Descriptions are truncated unless full_description is true.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descNo
sortNo
limitNo
queryNo
themeNo
offsetNo
categoryNo
max_ideasNo
min_ideasNo
open_onlyNo
departmentNo
deadline_toNo
organizationNo
deadline_fromNo
include_closedNo
full_descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explains relevance ranking, partial-term matching with lower rank, how closed statements are excluded or sorted last, the closed_hidden result field, and that descriptions are truncated unless full_description is true. It does not mention pagination behavior or permission/auth requirements, so it is not complete enough for a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with its purpose and then organized around parameter semantics. Every sentence is doing real work for a tool with 16 parameters, and there is no filler. The formatting is dense and the line breaks are awkward, which slightly hurts readability, but the content is appropriately sized.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex 16-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is substantially complete: it covers ranking, filtering, sorting, closed-statement handling, and truncation. It still omits pagination semantics (limit/offset), the meaning of desc, and the overall return shape beyond closed_hidden, so there are clear remaining gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: query ranking semantics, case-insensitive substring filters for organization/category/theme/department, idea-count filters with closed-statement behavior, inclusive ISO dates for deadlines, sort options, include_closed, and full_description. It leaves three parameters unexplained: desc, limit, and offset. That is a meaningful gap, but the coverage is still strong.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search/filter/sort problem statements.' That is much clearer than a tautology and tells the agent exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_problem_statement or list_facets, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains what each filter and sort option does, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never states when to choose search_problem_statements over get_problem_statement, list_facets, or refresh_problem_statements, and it gives no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools