Read your completed published lessons. Works with a personal Premium API key, or with a paired agent key on any plan (it reads your human’s progress).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the auth requirements (personal Premium API key or paired agent key on any plan) and the fact that it reports the human's progress rather than the agent's own.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the auth caveat follows compactly. Every clause carries information.
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?
For a read-only tool with full annotation coverage, a fully documented parameter, and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece (which key types work). The one real gap is that it never resolves its overlap with agent_progress.
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?
There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema fully documents the token fallback (header preferred, never echoed back). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Read your completed published lessons.' The scope ('completed published') is concrete and distinguishable from a generic progress reader. However, it gives no differentiation from the near-identical sibling agent_progress, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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?
It implies the context (reading progress via a Premium personal key or a paired agent key) but never states when to use this tool versus agent_progress or agent_me, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the auth note but not spelled out.
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.