Skip to main content
Glama

Codewars

by io.github.pipeworx-io

User

user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a Codewars user's public profile by username: honor, clan, leaderboard rank, overall language ranks, and skills.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clanNoUser's clan name
nameNoUser's display name
honorNoUser's honor points
ranksNo
skillsNoList of programming skills
usernameNoCodewars username
code_challengesNo
leaderboard_positionNoPosition on leaderboard

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: +[
+  {
+    "username": "codewars_user"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "clan": {
+      "description": "User's clan name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "code_challenges": {
+      "properties": {
+        "total_authored": {
+          "description": "Total authored kata",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "total_completed": {
+          "description": "Total completed challenges",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "honor": {
+      "description": "User's honor points",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "leaderboard_position": {
+      "description": "Position on leaderboard",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "User's display name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ranks": {
+      "properties": {
+        "languages": {
+          "description": "Language-specific ranks",
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "overall": {
+          "properties": {
+            "color": {
+              "description": "Rank color code",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "name": {
+              "description": "Rank name",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "rank": {
+              "description": "Overall rank number",
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "score": {
+              "description": "Overall score",
+              "type": "number"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "skills": {
+      "description": "List of programming skills",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "username": {
+      "description": "Codewars username",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds context by listing returned fields and stating 'public profile', but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or whether authentication is required (though likely not needed for public profile).

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?

Single sentence, highly concise, no redundancy. Lists key output fields efficiently. Could be slightly improved with bullet points, but structure is adequate.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema likely defines return structure, the description covers the essential purpose and output scope. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple public fetch with full annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'username' parameter. However, it only says 'by username', offering no format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema's provided example.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and specific resource 'Codewars user's public profile', listing key fields (honor, clan, rank). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kata' (fetch kata) or 'user_completed' (completed katas).

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 implies usage (to get user profile) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. For a simple tool, this is adequate but lacks differentiation from siblings like 'user_authored' or 'resolve_entity'.

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