Skip to main content
Glama

Flash

by com.flashmemorize
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit review

submit_review

Use this after the user answers the card just asked in a study session: records how well they knew it, which sets when the card comes back, and returns the next card. Grade STRICTLY against the card's back: facts, numbers, doses, and units must match precisely. An imprecise answer is 1 (Again), never 'close enough'; only phrasing may differ. Part of an answer is a miss, so '60' for '60 to 100 bpm' is 1. 1=Again (wrong, blank, or anything the card asks for left out), 2=Hard (the whole answer, but slowly or unsurely), 3=Good (the whole answer), 4=Easy (the whole answer at once). 2, 3 and 4 all record that the user knew it. State the exact answer on a miss, then immediately ask next_card's front. A null next_card ends the session. Wrap up briefly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ratingYes1=Again 2=Hard 3=Good 4=Easy
card_idYesThe card just asked: the card_id of the front the user answered.
session_idYesThe session_id start_study_session returned.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoPresent only when the queue is empty: why, and what to do next.
recordedYes
next_cardNoNext card to ask immediately, or null when the session is finished.
remainingYesCards left in the queue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / card_id / description
      Added value: +"The card just asked: the card_id of the front the user answered."
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id / description
      Added value: +"The session_id start_study_session returned."
  2. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / description
      Previous value: -"One card front for the assistant to ask."New value: +"Rich question only. Editable source is deliberately absent during study."
    • removedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / properties / front
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The question side; ask it and wait for the user's answer.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / properties / front_html
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / properties / media
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/MediaOut"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / properties / spoken_front
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The question as it should be read aloud: a cloze gap is the word\n\"blank\", a picture is described, a formula is named. Speak this\nrather than `front` when talking.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "card_id",
-  "front",
-  "spoken_front"
-]New value: +[
+  "card_id",
+  "front_html",
+  "media"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / MediaOut
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "filename": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "media_id": {
+      "format": "int64",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "mime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "format": "uint64",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "media_id",
+    "url",
+    "mime",
+    "filename",
+    "size"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / properties / spoken_front
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The question as it should be read aloud: a cloze gap is the word\n\"blank\", a picture is described, a formula is named. Speak this\nrather than `front` when talking.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / CardFrontOut / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "card_id",
-  "front"
-]New value: +[
+  "card_id",
+  "front",
+  "spoken_front"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive write; the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot carry: scheduling consequences ('sets when the card comes back'), the next_card return and its null-terminates-session semantics, and the required follow-up action of stating the exact answer on a miss.

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 sentence is long but front-loads the usage trigger and keeps the grading rubric in a compact, scannable form. Some of the 1-4 legend restates the schema's own rating description, which is mild redundancy, but the surrounding nuance rules earn their space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, yet the description still covers the one behaviorally critical return detail (null next_card ends the session). Combined with the grading policy and session-flow instructions, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already defines the 1-4 rating mapping, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by supplying a strict grading rubric with concrete edge cases ('60' for '60 to 100 bpm' is 1), which materially changes how an agent picks the rating value.

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+resource ('records how well they knew it'), plus two side effects: it 'sets when the card comes back' and 'returns the next card.' This cleanly separates it from siblings like show_answer and start_study_session.

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 states timing precisely ('after the user answers the card just asked in a study session') and describes the hand-off to next_card's front and the session-end condition. It doesn't name a competing tool to avoid, so it stops short of an explicit when-not, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

All Flash toolsInspect
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