get_signup_linkGet the links to start using Examova — free demo exam, free account (5 questions/day), and Pro pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| certification | No | Optional certification slug to deep-link |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| demoUrl | Yes | ||
| pricingUrl | Yes | ||
| registerUrl | Yes | ||
| certificationUrl | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the three kinds of links returned and the free-account daily question limit, which are not derivable from annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause ('free demo exam, free account (5 questions/day), and Pro pricing') conveys useful 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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and return categories. No additional context is needed for correct selection and invocation.
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?
The schema description for the sole parameter 'certification' is 100% complete (optional slug to deep-link). The tool description does not add parameter details, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'links to start using Examova' and enumerates the exact categories (free demo exam, free account, Pro pricing). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_exam_info or list_certifications.
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?
The phrase 'to start using Examova' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate—when a user needs signup/demo/pricing links. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools' purposes make the distinction obvious.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: exam info, signup links, study guides, certification listing, and practice questions. There is no overlap, and agents can easily select the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing exam prep information and sample content. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core user journey: discover certifications, get exam details, access study guides, sign up, and try sample questions. No obvious gaps exist for the stated public-info purpose.