Ripostiq

Start practice exam

start_exam

Start the course's SCORED PRACTICE EXAM — a full, blueprint-aligned multiple-choice mock that returns a scaled score against the real pass line, a per-domain breakdown, and rationale for every question. Login + entitlement gated like the paid capstone (returns needs_login / locked if not). Returns a drawn form of questions WITHOUT the answers (the key is held server-side); proctor them one at a time, collect the learner's letters, then call submit_exam(course, answers) to score. Never reveal or answer the questions yourself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`course`	Yes
`auth_token`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With only destructiveHint=false as annotation, the description adds extensive behavior: login/entitlement gating, needs_login/locked responses, form without answers, server-held key, and proctoring expectations. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value—no filler. It is well-structured with an em-dash flow that is readable despite the technical details.

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?

Despite minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, gating, security restrictions, and the next step. It is self-contained and complete for a tool with a rich output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has zero descriptions for parameters, and while the description mentions course in the workflow, it does not explicitly map auth_token to the gating behavior. Some compensation exists, but full parameter clarity is not provided.

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 clearly states the tool starts the course's scored practice exam, a specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like daily_drill and submit_exam by emphasizing the scoring and full-length mock format.

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 provides a clear workflow: start the exam, collect letters, then call submit_exam(course, answers). It also gives an instruction on what not to do (never reveal answers), but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of an alternative.

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

All Ripostiq tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?