coach_mastery
Coach — seal an HONEST INTEGER count of completed units (a receipt for progress, never a grade on the child). Returns a re-checkable seal.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| completed | No |
concordance
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed3 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - added
Input schema / properties / completed / itemsAdded value: +{ + "maxLength": 4000, + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / completed / maxItemsAdded value: +200
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a re-checkable seal, but does not state whether the operation persists data, requires permissions, handles repeated calls, or what 'honest' enforcement means.
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 only two sentences and starts with the action, which is concise. The poetic capitalization and metaphor add style but slightly reduce clarity without adding substantive information.
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?
Although the tool has a single optional parameter, the absence of annotations, output schema, and sibling differentiation leaves significant gaps: usage boundaries, side effects, and parameter content are all under-specified. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'completed', has no schema description and the description does not explain its format, item semantics, or how it maps to the 'integer count'. It broadly suggests listing completed units, but leaves essential detail missing.
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 states a clear action—sealing an honest integer count of completed units—and indicates a returned re-checkable seal. However, terms like 'seal' and 'completed units' are somewhat metaphorical and not fully defined, and it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling attestation tools like attest_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'receipt for progress, never a grade on the child' implies this tool is for tracking progress rather than evaluation, providing some usage context. But there are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.