Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Skool MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List levels

list_levels
Read-onlyIdempotent

The group's 9 levels with their custom titles and how many members reached each. Lists the 9 levels of the group's leaderboard: the level number, Skool's name for it, the title the admins gave it (empty when none) and the share of members at that level. Points come from likes; get_leaderboard ranks the members.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group": "<group>"
    },
    "name": "list_levels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupYesGroup URL name, e.g. 'yourgroup' for skool.com/yourgroup.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the result is fixed at 9 levels, the title field is empty when no custom title exists, and share-of-members is included per level — details an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the returned fields enumerated up front. There is mild redundancy — the first sentence and second sentence both restate that there are 9 levels — but nothing is padded beyond that.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so: level number, Skool name, custom title (empty when none), and member share. Minor gap: it never specifies the format of 'share' (percentage vs. fraction), which an agent consuming the data would want.

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?

Only one parameter exists and it has 100% schema description coverage, which already explains the group URL format. The description adds no supplementary meaning about the group argument (e.g., must the caller be a member), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists the group's 9 levels) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: level number, Skool's internal name, admin-assigned title, and member share. It also explicitly separates itself from get_leaderboard, which ranks members rather than describing levels.

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 draws the key distinction against the closest sibling by noting 'get_leaderboard ranks the members,' so an agent can infer that this tool is for level definitions/membership distribution rather than member ranking. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause, but for a simple read-only listing the routing context is clear.

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

All Skool MCP Server and API by Cotlet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources