Skip to main content
Glama

What a grade means in WASSCE, BECE, KCSE or NSC

grades.scale
Read-only

Use this when someone asks what a grade or level means, or for the whole grading scale, in WASSCE, Ghana's BECE, Kenya's KCSE or South Africa's NSC (for example "is C6 a credit?" or "what is level 4 in matric?"). Do not use it to work out an aggregate or mean grade: use the examination's own tool.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "exam": "<exam>"
    },
    "name": "grades.scale"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
examYesThe examination.
gradeNoOne grade or level to explain, for example "C6", "B-" or "4". Leave out for the whole scale.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
examYes
noteYes
askedNo
scaleYes
read_onYes
sourcesYes
explore_urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safe lookup profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the domain scope and the aggregate exclusion; it does not discuss return shape or coverage limits beyond what the output schema supplies.

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?

Two sentences, the positive trigger front-loaded and the exclusion second; every clause carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

With a fully described two-parameter schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies exactly the remaining pieces an agent needs: what the tool answers and where its boundary with the aggregate tools lies.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by restating that omitting a grade yields the whole grading scale and by giving realistic value examples ('C6', 'B-', '4') that map to the grade parameter's intent.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pair ('what a grade or level means') and enumerates the four covered examinations (WASSCE, BECE, KCSE, NSC), which immediately separates it from the sibling aggregate/mean-grade tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives concrete when-to-use triggers backed by example questions ('is C6 a credit?', 'what is level 4 in matric?') and an explicit exclusion: do not use for aggregates or mean grades, use the examination's own tool instead.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources