Legends of Learning
Server Details
Search the Legends of Learning K-8 games catalog and standards alignment
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct domain function: browsing standards, searching games, and getting game details. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (browse_standards, get_game, search_games), making the set predictable.
With 3 tools covering standards browsing, game search, and game details, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose without unnecessary tools.
The tools provide a full workflow: browse standards to get IDs, search games by learning objectives, and fetch detailed game info. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolslegends_browse_standardsBrowse curriculum standardsARead-onlyInspect
Browses the public Legends of Learning curriculum taxonomy.
Without standard_set, lists the public standard sets (e.g. id "NGSS" for Next Generation Science Standards, "CCSS" for Common Core math), each with id, name, and subject_area; query filters them by name.
With standard_set (a set id from the list above), lists the standards in that set. Each standard has id, code (e.g. "2.OA.A.1" or an NGSS code), title, description, grades ("k" and "1"-"12"), and subject. Use a standard's id in legends_search_games' learning_objective_ids to find games aligned to it. query free-text matches code, title, and description; grade (integer, 0 = kindergarten) narrows to one grade level.
page (default 1) and page_size (default 10, max 25) paginate both modes.
Example: {"standard_set": "CCSS", "grade": 2, "query": "addition"} finds 2nd-grade Common Core standards about addition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| grade | No | Only standards for this grade level; 0 means kindergarten | |
| query | No | Free-text filter (set names, or standard codes/titles/descriptions) | |
| page_size | No | ||
| standard_set | No | A standard set id (e.g. "NGSS", "CCSS"); omit to list the sets |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details pagination behavior, filtering by query and grade, and the output structure for each mode. It fully discloses the tool's behavior.
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 well-structured with paragraphs for each mode and includes a concrete example. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values for both modes. It also cross-references sibling tools, making the tool's role in the ecosystem clear.
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?
Despite 60% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter in context: standard_set toggles mode, query filters set names or standard fields, grade with integer meaning, and page/page_size for pagination. The example adds practical clarity.
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 clearly states 'Browses the public Legends of Learning curriculum taxonomy' and explains two distinct modes: listing standard sets or listing standards within a set. This differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on games.
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 description explains when to use each mode (with or without standard_set) and provides a cross-reference to legends_search_games for finding aligned games. It lacks explicit exclusions but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
legends_get_gameGet a Legends of Learning gameARead-onlyInspect
Fetches the full public detail for one Legends of Learning game by its numeric id (from legends_search_games).
Returns the game's id, title, description, image, estimated_duration in minutes, type, grades served, teacher/student ratings, instructions, vocabulary, discussion questions, capability flags (supports_ipad, supports_tts, multi_language, saves_progress), lexile_level, the public url, and learning_objectives — the standards the game is aligned to, each with id, title, code, and standard_set.
Example: {"game_id": 1445} returns that game, or an error result if no such game is publicly available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game_id | Yes | Numeric game id, e.g. from legends_search_games results |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the exact fields returned, including capability flags and learning objectives. It also mentions error cases ('or an error result if no such game is publicly available'), adding transparency.
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 paragraph with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by a list of return fields and an example. It is concise but not overly terse; every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the simple input schema (one required parameter), presence of annotations, and detailed description of output fields and error behavior, the description is fully complete. The example further aids understanding.
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 input schema already provides a clear description for game_id (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting the source (legends_search_games), which is also implied in the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetches' and the resource 'full public detail for one Legends of Learning game'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the numeric id comes from legends_search_games, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 description provides context by referencing legends_search_games as the source of the game id, implying this tool should be used after searching. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the single-parameter input and mention of one game make the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
legends_search_gamesSearch Legends of Learning gamesARead-onlyInspect
Searches the public Legends of Learning game catalog (curriculum-aligned learning games for grades K-12 in math, science, and social studies).
Arguments (all optional): query free-text matches game titles and vocabulary; grades narrows to games for those grade levels (integers, 0 = kindergarten through 12); game_type is one of "instructional", "question", or "simulation"; learning_objective_ids narrows to games aligned to those learning objectives (get ids from legends_browse_standards); page (default 1) and page_size (default 10, max 25) paginate.
Returns games (each with id, title, description, image, estimated_duration in minutes, type, grades served, teacher/student ratings, and the game's public url) plus page, page_size, total_entries, and total_pages.
Example: {"query": "fractions", "grades": [3, 4], "page_size": 5} finds up to five 3rd-4th grade games about fractions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text search over game titles and vocabulary | |
| grades | No | Grade levels to include; 0 means kindergarten | |
| game_type | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| learning_objective_ids | No | Learning objective ids from legends_browse_standards |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. Description adds specific behavioral details: returns paginated results with fields like id, title, ratings, and explains constraints like max page_size=25. No contradictions.
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?
Well-structured with separate sections for arguments, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 tool with 6 optional parameters and no required fields or output schema, the description covers all parameters, return fields, pagination, and provides an example. Minor gap: no mention of empty result handling, but overall complete.
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?
Description adds meaning over the input schema for all 6 parameters, including defaults, valid ranges, and relationships (e.g., learning_objective_ids from legends_browse_standards). Schema already describes 3 parameters; description covers the rest and provides an example. With 50% schema coverage, description compensates effectively.
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?
Specifies exactly what the tool does: searches the public Legends of Learning game catalog for curriculum-aligned games. Clearly distinguishes from siblings 'legends_browse_standards' and 'legends_get_game' by focusing on search and listing.
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?
States that all arguments are optional and gives an explicit example showing typical usage. Implicitly tells when to use by describing the search functionality, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!