Life Scenario

Find a practice situation

find_practice_situation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds up to 3 public Life Scenario practice scenarios for a real-life situation a child is facing (for example: left out at recess, peer pressure, cheating in a group chat, parents arguing, a new school). Returns each scenario's title, a short excerpt, the ages it is written for, the traits it practises, a link the adult can open to try it together with the child without an account and, when one is published, the parent page or what-to-say guide about the same situation. match_quality is "close" (the scenarios are about this situation) or "loose" (they only touch it and may not fit). An empty or loose result means only that no public scenario fits. Returns authored practice scenarios only, never other children's answers. Topics involving risk of harm, or medical or legal questions, return status "not_covered" with no guide or practice link.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`age`	No	Optional child age (6–14). Scenarios written for this age are ranked first.
`situation`	Yes	The situation in everyday words, e.g. "friends pressure him to laugh at another kid".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`status`	No	Present only when the topic is not covered: no guide or practice link is returned.
`matches`	Yes	Up to 3 practice scenarios; empty when no public scenario fits or the topic is not covered.
`topic_area`	No	With status not_covered: the kind of topic that was recognised.
`urgent_help`	No	With status not_covered, for topics involving risk of harm: where to get urgent help, in the wording published in Life Scenario's guides.
`how_it_works`	No
`match_quality`	No	close = the scenarios are about this situation; loose = they only touch it and may not fit. Absent when there are no matches.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / match_quality / description

Previous value: -"close = the scenarios are about this situation; loose = they only touch it, check that they fit before sharing. Absent when there are no matches."New value: +"close = the scenarios are about this situation; loose = they only touch it and may not fit. Absent when there are no matches."

changedOutput schema / properties / matches / description

Previous value: -"Up to 3 practice scenarios; empty when no public scenario fits."New value: +"Up to 3 practice scenarios; empty when no public scenario fits or the topic is not covered."

addedOutput schema / properties / status

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the topic is not covered: no guide or practice link is returned.",
+  "enum": [
+    "not_covered"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / topic_area

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With status not_covered: the kind of topic that was recognised.",
+  "enum": [
+    "self_harm_or_suicide",
+    "abuse_or_sexual_harm",
+    "violence_or_weapons",
+    "eating_or_body",
+    "medical_or_diagnostic",
+    "legal",
+    "bereavement_or_serious_illness"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / urgent_help

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With status not_covered, for topics involving risk of harm: where to get urgent help, in the wording published in Life Scenario's guides.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description layers on real behavioral context: the 3-result cap, the meaning of match_quality close vs loose, that empty/loose means no public scenario fits (not a negative judgement), that only authored scenarios are returned and never other children's answers, and that risk/medical/legal topics return status 'not_covered' with no links.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and capped result count, followed by the return contents and the match_quality/not_covered caveats. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the enumeration of returned fields is lengthy for a tool with an output schema.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain returns, yet it still covers result semantics, the empty/loose interpretation, the not_covered safety path, and the authorship guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret its output is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description corroborates the domain (child age range, everyday-words situation phrasing) but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (finds) and resource (public practice scenarios) with an explicit cap of 3 and a concrete scope (a real-life situation a child faces). The examples (recess exclusion, peer pressure, parents arguing) make the retrieval target unambiguous and separate it from the sibling tools that fetch what-to-say guides or traits.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context of use — an adult looking for something to try together with the child — and references the related parent page / what-to-say guide, implying the sibling relationship. It also states what empty and loose results mean, which guides interpretation. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing rule, so not a 5.

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

All Life Scenario tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?