user_completedList completed kata (coding challenges) for a Codewars username, paginated; returns kata ID, slug, name, completion time, and languages used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | List of completed challenges | |
| totalItems | No | Total number of completed challenges | |
| totalPages | No | Total number of pages |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "username": "codewars_user"
+ },
+ {
+ "page": 2,
+ "username": "codewars_user"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "List of completed challenges",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "completedAt": {
+ "description": "ISO timestamp of completion",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Challenge ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "languages": {
+ "description": "Languages used to solve",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Challenge name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "Challenge slug",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "totalItems": {
+ "description": "Total number of completed challenges",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "totalPages": {
+ "description": "Total number of pages",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds pagination and return fields, but does not address openWorldHint (results may change) or provide additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema, annotations, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential aspects. Missing are details on ordering, page size, or error behavior, but these are not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by mentioning pagination, implying the 'page' parameter controls page number. 'username' is clear. However, no format details or defaults are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'completed kata for a username', and distinguishes from siblings like 'user' and 'user_authored'. It also specifies pagination and return fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it's for completed kata, but no guidance on exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.