contest_listAll contests. Pass gym=true for gym contests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gym | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Array of contest objects | |
| status | Yes | Response status (OK or FAILED) | |
| comment | No | Error comment (if status is FAILED) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "gym": false
+ },
+ {
+ "gym": true
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "comment": {
+ "description": "Error comment (if status is FAILED)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "description": "Array of contest objects",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "city": {
+ "description": "City name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "country": {
+ "description": "Country code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Contest description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "difficulty": {
+ "description": "Difficulty level",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "durationSeconds": {
+ "description": "Contest duration in seconds",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "frozen": {
+ "description": "Is scoreboard frozen",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "icpcPhase": {
+ "description": "ICPC contest phase",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Contest ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "kind": {
+ "description": "Contest kind",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Contest name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "phase": {
+ "description": "Contest phase (BEFORE, CODING, PENDING_SYSTEM_TEST, SYSTEM_TEST, FINISHED)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "preparedBy": {
+ "description": "Prepared by (handle)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "relativeTimeSeconds": {
+ "description": "Seconds since contest start (if started)",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "season": {
+ "description": "Season name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "startTimeSeconds": {
+ "description": "Unix timestamp of contest start",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Contest type (CF, IOI, ICPC)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "websiteUrl": {
+ "description": "Contest website URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Response status (OK or FAILED)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'gym' parameter but lacks details on pagination, result format, or other behaviors. Adequate but not enhanced.
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?
The description is very short and front-loaded. It is concise, but could benefit from minimal structure. No wasted words.
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?
Despite having rich annotations and an output schema, the description lacks context about what contests are, the output format, or how to interpret results. Insufficient for an agent to fully decide.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially by explaining 'Pass gym=true for gym contests.' However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'gym contests' or the default behavior.
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?
The description 'All contests' is vague and does not specify the verb or action (e.g., list, retrieve) nor the exact resource (contest list). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'contest_standings'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the 'gym' parameter but does not provide context for usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set mixes Codeforces-specific tools with a large Pipeworx data toolkit. Within the Pipeworx family, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical (the beta explicitly matches the stable version today), and deep_research/discover_tools/suggest_questions also overlap as meta entry points, creating real selection hazard. An agent could easily misselect among these.
Naming patterns are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (list_subscriptions, validate_claim, resolve_entity), some use bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some are noun phrases (problemset, blog_entry_view, recent_actions). Word order also varies (contest_list vs list_subscriptions), so no consistent convention is followed.
39 tools is far too many for a server named 'Codeforces' — only 8 tools actually concern Codeforces, while the remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx/utility tools. This bloats the surface and makes the server feel unfocused, especially for an agent expecting a compact Codeforces API.
For the Codeforces domain, the core read-only API is covered (contests, standings, problems, user info/rating/status, blog entries, recent actions) but some endpoints are missing (blog comments, rated list, problem statements). The large number of extra tools does not fill these gaps and instead obscures the intended purpose.