Skip to main content
Glama

Codewars

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Kata

kata
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single Codewars kata by ID or slug; returns name, description, rank (kyu), tags, languages, approval status, total completions, and satisfaction rating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id_or_slugYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoKata ID
nameNoKata name
rankNoDifficulty rank
slugNoKata URL slug
tagsNoKata tags/categories
statsNo
rankNameNoRank name (e.g., '8 kyu')
createdByNo
languagesNoAvailable programming languages
approvedByNoApprover username
descriptionNoKata description
publishedAtNoISO timestamp of publication
approvedDateNoISO approval date

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: +[
+  {
+    "id_or_slug": "train-size"
+  },
+  {
+    "id_or_slug": "550498447271904"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "approvedBy": {
+      "description": "Approver username",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "approvedDate": {
+      "description": "ISO approval date",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "createdBy": {
+      "properties": {
+        "url": {
+          "description": "Author profile URL",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "username": {
+          "description": "Author username",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "description": "Kata description",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Kata ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "languages": {
+      "description": "Available programming languages",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Kata name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "publishedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp of publication",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rank": {
+      "description": "Difficulty rank",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "rankName": {
+      "description": "Rank name (e.g., '8 kyu')",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "slug": {
+      "description": "Kata URL slug",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stats": {
+      "properties": {
+        "totalAttempts": {
+          "description": "Total attempts",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "totalCompleted": {
+          "description": "Total completions",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "totalStars": {
+          "description": "Total stars received",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "voteScore": {
+          "description": "Vote score",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tags": {
+      "description": "Kata tags/categories",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the return value structure (name, rank, tags, etc.) and the input format (ID or slug). No contradictions with 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently conveys the purpose and return fields. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers the identifier method and the key return fields, allowing an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'id_or_slug' lacks schema-level description. The description adds minimal meaning by stating 'by ID or slug', but does not clarify format, examples beyond schema examples, or constraints. More detail would be beneficial.

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 states the action 'Fetch', the resource 'single Codewars kata', and the identifier method 'by ID or slug'. It also lists the return fields, making it easy to understand what the tool does. Compared to sibling tools, none are similar, so it is well-distinguished.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, usage is implicitly implied for retrieving kata details. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

All Codewars 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and discover_tools all occupy adjacent lookup/discovery territory. The four Codewars tools are clear, but the broader set is genuinely hard to navigate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow a readable snake_case verb_noun style with useful prefixes like polymarket_ and user_, but there are one-word outliers (kata, user, forget, recall, remember) and inconsistent phrasing such as ai_visibility_check versus scan_competitor_ai_presence. The naming is mostly predictable but not uniform.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is already heavy, and the server is named Codewars while only 4 of the 35 tools relate to Codewars. The remaining 31 tools belong to a completely different Pipeworx research/prediction-market/brand-visibility product, making the count both excessive and fundamentally mismatched to the server's stated identity.

Completeness1/5

For a Codewars server, the surface is severely incomplete: you can fetch a single kata and a user's profile, authored list, and completed list, but there is no search, no kata listing by rank/tag, no solution submission or training workflow, and no way to manage authored kata. The unrelated Pipeworx tools do not fill these gaps; they point at a different domain entirely.

Resources