Codeforces

Contest Standings

contest_standings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Codeforces competitive-programming API — the final scoreboard of one Codeforces round: every participant's rank, handle, total points, penalty, hack counts and per-problem results, plus the contest metadata and its problem list with difficulty ratings and tags. Answers who won a Codeforces contest, where a given handle placed, and which problems the round contained.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`from`	No	1-based rank to start at (default 1)
`count`	No	1-1000 rows to return (default 100)
`handles`	No	Keep only rows containing these handles. Applied by this pack after fetching, because Codeforces rejects the upstream filter on public standings.
`contest_id`	Yes	Non-gym contest id, e.g. 1000. Gym contests need an authenticated Codeforces API key, which this keyless pack does not hold.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	No	Contest standings result
`status`	Yes	Response status (OK or FAILED)
`comment`	No	Error comment (if status is FAILED)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed5 schema fields changedAug 31, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "contest_id": 1900
-  },
-  {
-    "contest_id": 1900,
-    "count": 50,
-    "handles": [
-      "tourist",
-      "ecnerwala"
-    ]
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "contest_id": 1900
+  },
+  {
+    "contest_id": 1900,
+    "count": 50,
+    "handles": [
+      "HimenoTowa"
+    ]
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / contest_id / description

Added value: +"Non-gym contest id, e.g. 1000. Gym contests need an authenticated Codeforces API key, which this keyless pack does not hold."

changedInput schema / properties / count / description

Previous value: -"1-1000 (default 100)"New value: +"1-1000 rows to return (default 100)"

addedInput schema / properties / from / description

Added value: +"1-based rank to start at (default 1)"

addedInput schema / properties / handles / description

Added value: +"Keep only rows containing these handles. Applied by this pack after fetching, because Codeforces rejects the upstream filter on public standings."

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 22, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "contest_id": 1900
+  },
+  {
+    "contest_id": 1900,
+    "count": 50,
+    "handles": [
+      "tourist",
+      "ecnerwala"
+    ]
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "comment": {
+      "description": "Error comment (if status is FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Contest standings result",
+      "properties": {
+        "contest": {
+          "description": "Contest information",
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "problems": {
+          "description": "Array of problems in contest",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "contestId": {
+                "description": "Contest ID",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "index": {
+                "description": "Problem index (A, B, C, etc.)",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "name": {
+                "description": "Problem name",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "points": {
+                "description": "Maximum points",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "rating": {
+                "description": "Problem difficulty rating",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "tags": {
+                "description": "Problem tags",
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              "type": {
+                "description": "Problem type (PROGRAMMING, QUESTION)",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "rows": {
+          "description": "Standings rows (participants)",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "party": {
+                "description": "Participant party info",
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "penalty": {
+                "description": "Penalty in seconds",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "points": {
+                "description": "Total points scored",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "problemResults": {
+                "description": "Results per problem",
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "object"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              "rank": {
+                "description": "Final rank",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "successfulHackCount": {
+                "description": "Successful hacks",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "unsuccessfulHackCount": {
+                "description": "Unsuccessful hacks",
+                "type": "number"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Response status (OK or FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics meaningful to an agent: the handles filter is applied client-side after fetching because Codeforces rejects the upstream filter, and gym contests are off-limits without credentials. It also describes exactly what data will be returned. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supporting detail in a single flowing paragraph. It uses concrete examples of answers it can provide. It could be slightly tightened by moving the examples into a clearer sentence break, but it remains efficient and informative without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only tool with a rich output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the result contains, what type of contests are supported, and how the handles filter behaves. The only possible omission is rate-limit guidance, but that's not essential given the annotations and schema.

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 all four parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds a bit of context about what 'handles' filtering does and the gym/contest_id limitation, but mostly the schema carries the parameter documentation load. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource: the final scoreboard of a specific Codeforces round, enumerating its contents (participants' rank, handle, points, penalty, hacks, per-problem results, contest metadata, problem list with ratings/tags). It answers specific sample questions (who won, where a handle placed, which problems the round contained), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like contest_list, problemset, and user_status.

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?

The description implies when this tool is useful by listing the kinds of questions it answers. The schema adds important usage context: contest_id must be a non-gym contest and gym contests are excluded due to missing auth. However, the main description doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling tools (e.g., contest_list for listing rounds, problemset for problem data without standings, recent_actions for recent activity).

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

All Codeforces tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Contest Standings

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources