Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codechef-mcp

codechef-mcp

by sarthaksec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get CodeChef rating history

get_rating_history
Read-only

Return a CodeChef user's contest rating history in reverse chronological order, including rating, rating change, and rank per contest to analyze trends and improvement.

Instructions

Return a user's contest rating history (newest first) with rating after each contest, rating change (delta) and rank. Useful for trends, streaks and 'how has X improved' questions.

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_rating_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many recent contests to return (default 20).
handleYesCodeChef username/handle, e.g. 'gennady.korotkevich'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral detail not in structured fields, the "newest first" ordering, which matters for interpreting results. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown handle, empty history, or how limit interacts with total contests.

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 filler. The return shape is front-loaded before the usage hint, so an agent scanning the first clause already knows what it gets back.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and ordering, which is the right compensation for a simple two-parameter read tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior for unknown handles or histories shorter than the requested limit.

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%, with both handle and limit documented including the default of 20, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about the limit parameter or handle formatting beyond what the schema already states.

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 ("Return a user's contest rating history") and enumerates the payload fields: rating after each contest, delta, and rank. It is clearly distinct from get_profile or get_solved_problems, though it never names a sibling tool to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

"Useful for trends, streaks and 'how has X improved' questions" gives concrete usage context that maps to real query types. It stops short of when-not guidance or naming get_contests as the alternative for contest-level data, so an agent must still infer the boundary itself.

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