Assessment Intelligence

assessment_intelligence

Read-only

Item analysis, Cronbach's alpha, Rasch ability estimates with standard errors, Bayesian knowledge tracing, an adaptive next item, and support flags. Never ranks learners. Up to 5,000 rows.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "assessment_intelligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_bank`	No
`responses`	No
`asked_items`	No
`focus_learner`	No
`min_responses`	No
`student_ability`	No
`learning_history`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context with 'Never ranks learners' and the 5,000-row cap, but it does not explain how the various analyses are triggered or what operational behavior to expect from the optional parameters.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads its capability list, followed by the two important constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the feature list is dense and could be structured more clearly for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex analytics tool with 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain how inputs drive the analyses or what optional parameters do. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input-side context remains materially incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

All 7 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It mentions analyses and a row limit but never maps item_bank, responses, asked_items, focus_learner, min_responses, student_ability, or learning_history to their roles, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description lists specific analyses (item analysis, Cronbach's alpha, Rasch estimates, Bayesian knowledge tracing, adaptive next item), which signals a psychometric analytics tool. However, it never states a clear verb+resource operation, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling assessment_intelligence_get_engine. The purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling engine tool. The only constraint-like information is 'Never ranks learners' and 'Up to 5,000 rows,' which are limitations rather than usage guidance.

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

All Assessment Intelligence 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.