get_certificateRipostiq certificate status. Pass module for that module's certificate (earned when
its boss battle is passed); omit it for the course certificate (earned when EVERY module's
boss is passed). Both are viewable at /certificate and publicly verifiable at /verify/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course | Yes | ||
| module | No | ||
| auth_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context about how certificates are earned (boss battles passed) and where they are viewable/verifiable, enriching the behavioral picture beyond the 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure flows logically from status to parameter guidance to verification context, though the phrase 'Ripostiq certificate status' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.
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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the key distinction between certificate types and earning conditions, but the lack of detail on `course` and `auth_token` parameters leaves minor gaps for invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool.
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 description thoroughly explains the `module` parameter and its default behavior, but does not explain `course` or `auth_token`. With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
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 tool retrieves certificate status, distinguishing between module and course certificates. It uses a specific resource (certificate) and explains the two modes, which separates it from sibling tools like get_progress or get_artifact.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to pass `module` (for a module certificate) vs omit it (for the course certificate), giving clear decision criteria. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the internal distinction is well covered.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlap or share boundaries: get_lesson vs teach_section (lesson vs section), recall_questions vs daily_drill (both spaced recall), and get_recap vs get_progress (both progress summaries). Descriptions generally help, but these pairs could cause misselection.
The vast majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_outline, begin_course, submit_exam, etc.). Minor deviations include daily_drill (adjective_noun), interview_prep (noun_noun), login, roast, and whoami (single words), but the overall style is consistent and readable.
24 tools is on the heavy side (16-25 feels bloated), though the platform spans courses, exams, interviews, artifacts, and user management, so the breadth is defensible. Some tools could be consolidated (e.g., recall_questions and daily_drill), making it feel slightly over-scoped.
Core learner workflows are covered: discover, start, learn, assess, track, and resume. However, descriptions reference missing tools like get_review and save_artifact, creating dead ends. There's also no tool for authoring/managing courses, even though list_courses mentions user-authored courses, leaving notable gaps.