SATCoach: AI SAT Tutor

Child's SAT prep summary

get_child_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

A summary of how the child is doing, enough for most questions about the child: this week's practice, which is the last 7 days as the parent portal counts them, and status (ahead, on_track, behind, or not_enough_data, measured against the child's daily goal), the skills the portal says need focused attention, the top 2 focus areas, the latest tutor update, the next test date, and contextWeNeed. For when a parent asks how their child is doing. child is optional when the parent has one child on SATCoach. Not for predicting or estimating an SAT score: status measures practice against the daily goal only. Requires a connected SATCoach parent account.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`child`	No	The child's reference, from the list of the parent's children. Optional when the parent has one child on SATCoach.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asOf`	Yes
`child`	Yes
`label`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`thisWeek`	Yes
`parentUrl`	Yes
`focusAreas`	Yes
`nextTestDate`	Yes
`contextWeNeed`	Yes
`latestTutorUpdate`	Yes
`needsFocusedAttention`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the 'Connected SATCoach parent account' prerequisite, the exact definition of the 7-day window ('as the parent portal counts them'), and the status enum semantics measured against the daily goal. The main redundancy is that it re-enumerates fields the output schema likely already declares.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is dense and nearly all of it earns its place, but it is delivered as one long comma-spliced sentence that lists seven return fields before stating the use case. Front-loading the trigger ('when a parent asks how their child is doing') ahead of the field inventory would make it far easier to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, yet it still covers the auth prerequisite, the time-window definition, the status value set, and a scope exclusion. The only meaningful gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when this aggregate supersedes the narrower sibling tools.

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% and the sole parameter is optional and fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the single-child optionality rule rather than adding new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the resource and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (this week's practice, status, focus skills, top 2 focus areas, latest tutor update, next test date, contextWeNeed), which is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of naming the overlapping siblings (get_progress, get_focus_areas, get_tutor_updates) it aggregates, so differentiation is implied by 'enough for most questions' rather than stated.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('For when a parent asks how their child is doing') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for predicting or estimating an SAT score: status measures practice against the daily goal only'), plus the optional-child condition for single-child parents. It does not tell the agent when to prefer the narrower siblings over this aggregate, so routing to alternatives remains an inference.

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

All SATCoach: AI SAT Tutor 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?