user_recent_submissionsRecent accepted submissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recentAcSubmissionList | No | List of recent accepted submissions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "username": "john_doe"
+ },
+ {
+ "username": "algorithm_master"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "recentAcSubmissionList": {
+ "description": "List of recent accepted submissions",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Submission ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "description": "Submission timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Problem title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "titleSlug": {
+ "description": "Problem title slug",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as what constitutes 'recent' or that only accepted submissions are returned.
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?
The description is extremely short at 3 words, which is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks front-loading of key information like the required username parameter.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not clarify that the tool retrieves submissions for a specific user or how 'recent' is defined.
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?
Input schema has 2 parameters (username, limit) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on required format or semantics.
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?
The description 'Recent accepted submissions' is vague and does not include a specific verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It reads as a label rather than a clear purpose statement, and there is no differentiation from siblings like 'user_solved' or 'recent_changes'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings such as 'user_solved' and 'user_profile', the description should explain that this tool returns accepted submissions specifically, but it does not.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve the same lookup purpose, and there are six different Polymarket tools with similar names and functions. The inclusion of a large unrelated data platform alongside a few LeetCode tools makes selection additionally confusing.
Almost all tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, list_subscriptions, etc.). Minor exceptions like 'problem' and 'daily_question' are still readable and don't break the overall predictability.
37 tools is far too many for a server named 'Leetcode' — the vast majority are unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory tools. Even as a general data server the count is heavy, and for the apparent LeetCode purpose it is severely over-scoped.
The LeetCode-specific tools cover basic user stats and problem details but lack problem listing/search, submissions, or any interaction beyond read-only queries. The Pipeworx side is extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, so the core domain has significant gaps.