Skip to main content
Glama

Codeforces

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Actions

recent_actions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Codeforces competitive-programming site — the global recent-actions feed, the newest blog entries and comments posted anywhere on Codeforces. Each action returns its timestamp plus the blog entry (title, author handle, rating) or comment text it refers to. Answers what the Codeforces community is posting and discussing right now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_countNo1-100 (default 30)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoArray of recent action objects
statusYesResponse status (OK or FAILED)
commentNoError comment (if status is FAILED)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "max_count": 30
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "comment": {
+      "description": "Error comment (if status is FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Array of recent action objects",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "blogEntryId": {
+            "description": "Blog entry ID (if applicable)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "contestId": {
+            "description": "Contest ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "handle": {
+            "description": "User handle",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "newsTitle": {
+            "description": "News title or action description",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rating": {
+            "description": "User rating",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "ratingUpdateTimeSeconds": {
+            "description": "Unix timestamp of action",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "text": {
+            "description": "Action text",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Response status (OK or FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return structure (timestamp plus blog entry or comment text) and the global scope ('anywhere on Codeforces'). It does not mention ordering or limitations, but the annotations and schema cover operational safety, so the added value is sufficient.

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 two sentences and generally concise, packing useful information. However, the first sentence is grammatically awkward ('Codeforces competitive-programming site — the global recent-actions feed, the newest blog entries...'), which slightly detracts from clarity. It could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the content of the returned actions, and the global scope. It does not need to describe return values since an output schema exists, and it covers all essential behavioral aspects.

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% for the single optional parameter max_count, with the schema already explaining the range and default. The description does not add any information about this parameter, so it receives the baseline score of 3. The description does not compensate for anything missing in 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 tool as the global recent-actions feed on Codeforces, listing the specific content (blog entries and comments) and what each action returns (timestamp plus entry/comment details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blog_entry_view (single entry) and recent_changes, making the purpose explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context for usage: 'Answers what the Codeforces community is posting and discussing right now.' This implies when to use it (for the global live feed), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It offers clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Codeforces toolsInspect
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.

Resources