recall_questionsReturn spaced-recall questions drawn from the account's completed modules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| course | Yes | ||
| auth_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the useful context that questions come from completed modules. However, it does not describe any additional behavior such as question ordering, randomness, or how the count parameter affects output.
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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and source.
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 tool's low complexity, existing annotations, and output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill by inference.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to mention any of the parameters (count, course, auth_token) or their semantics. The agent must infer what 'course' and 'count' mean from names alone.
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 identifies the action ('Return'), the resource ('spaced-recall questions'), and the source ('account's completed modules'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like daily_drill or get_recap.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as daily_drill or get_recap; there are no exclusions or context clues beyond the general notion of spaced recall.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.