Skip to main content
Glama

Codeforces

by io.github.pipeworx-io

User Status

user_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Codeforces competitive-programming API — the submission history of one Codeforces handle, newest first, paged with from/count. Each submission carries the contest and problem it targeted, the judge verdict (OK, WRONG_ANSWER, TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED), programming language, runtime and memory consumed. Answers which problems a Codeforces user attempted lately and whether they passed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNo1-based start (default 1)
countNo1-10000 (default 50)
handleYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoArray of submission 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: +[
+  {
+    "handle": "tourist"
+  },
+  {
+    "count": 100,
+    "from": 1,
+    "handle": "ecnerwala"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "comment": {
+      "description": "Error comment (if status is FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Array of submission objects",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "author": {
+            "description": "Author/participant info",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "contestId": {
+            "description": "Contest ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "creationTimeSeconds": {
+            "description": "Unix timestamp of submission",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Submission ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "memoryConsumedBytes": {
+            "description": "Memory consumed in bytes",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "passedTestCount": {
+            "description": "Number of passed tests",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "problem": {
+            "description": "Problem info",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "programmingLanguage": {
+            "description": "Programming language",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "relativeTimeSeconds": {
+            "description": "Time since contest start",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "testset": {
+            "description": "Testset type (SAMPLES, PRETESTS, TESTS)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "timeConsumedMillis": {
+            "description": "Time consumed in milliseconds",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "description": "Verdict (e.g., OK, WA, TLE, etc.)",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Response status (OK or FAILED)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies ordering ('newest first'), pagination ('paged with from/count'), and the content of each submission (contest, problem, verdict, language, runtime, memory). This is valuable and non-contradictory with the annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core identity ('Codeforces competitive-programming API — the submission history of one Codeforces handle'), and every sentence contributes either scope, data details, or the practical question answered. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema and annotations already covering read-only/idempotent behavior. The description provides all necessary operational context: pagination, ordering, what each submission contains, and the high-level purpose. It is complete and self-contained for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema documentation covers 'from' and 'count' but leaves 'handle' undescribed. The description compensates by identifying the handle as 'one Codeforces handle' and explaining that from/count control pagination with 'newest first' ordering. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema definitions, especially for the required handle parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'the submission history of one Codeforces handle, newest first, paged with from/count.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'user' and 'user_rating' by focusing on submission history and verdicts, and it concludes with the actionable question answered: 'which problems a Codeforces user attempted lately and whether they passed.'

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to see a Codeforces user's submission history and determine which problems they attempted and whether they passed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when this tool is appropriate. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' language prevents a 5.

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