codechef-mcp

Get CodeChef contest results

get_contests

Read-only

Fetches a CodeChef user's contests with problems solved, rank, and rating changes to review recent performance.

Instructions

List a user's contests (newest first) with the problems solved in each, plus rank and rating change where available. Use this for 'what has X solved recently' or per-contest performance.

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "get_contests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many recent contests to return (default 10).
`handle`	Yes	CodeChef username/handle, e.g. 'gennady.korotkevich'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile. The description adds ordering ("newest first") and, importantly, qualifies that rank and rating change are present only "where available" — useful disclosure that some returned fields may be null.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the return contents front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by naming the per-contest fields and their conditional availability. It could go one step further on ordering/pagination interaction with limit, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, including the default of 10 for limit. The description's "(newest first)" minimally clarifies that limit selects the most recent contests, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List a user's contests") plus the payload contents: problems solved per contest, rank, and rating change. It does not name or differentiate from sibling tools like get_solved_problems or get_rating_history, whose data it overlaps with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete usage contexts ("what has X solved recently" or per-contest performance), which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not say when to prefer get_solved_problems or get_rating_history instead, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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

Deploy Server