Skip to main content
Glama

Quantabble — AP Science Misconception Diagnostics

diagnose_response

Diagnose a student's written explanation in AP Chemistry or AP Physics 1 (or the same topics in introductory chemistry or algebra-based physics). Returns structured diagnostic data for your own tutoring: the verdict; the student's specific misconception in plain words, with error_source telling you whether it comes from our curated misconception library or was identified by the engine; where the topic sits in the AP course (unit and topic); why this reasoning loses credit on AP-style free-response scoring; what a credit-earning explanation must include; a recommended teaching move; and one probe question. A short ready-to-use tutor_response is included for simple integrations. Each response includes schema_id, the topic it matched: pass it back as schema_id on follow-up calls about the same topic to skip topic routing (faster and more consistent), and use it with curriculum_anchor to organize practice and reports by unit and topic. Use error_name to describe the error to teachers and students. Treat teaching_guidance as a recommendation, and prefer the probe question over reading reader_trap to the student verbatim. Send at least one full sentence of reasoning; not for single-word or numeric answers. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the College Board.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schema_idNoOptional. Target a specific schema (e.g. "AP_CHEM_1_1") if you already know the topic. If omitted, the API routes automatically across all 130 schemas.
student_responseYesThe student's own words — their explanation, reasoning, or answer in free-response form. At least one complete sentence with a stated reason works best.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the return payload (verdict, misconception, error_source, curriculum position, scoring rationale, required elements, teaching move, probe question, tutor_response), explains error_source semantics, and warns not to read reader_trap verbatim. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return payload, then reuses for integration advice and disclaimers. It is dense and long, but each clause carries information. The curriculum_anchor aside is slightly tangential but not wasteful.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough: it lists the return fields, explains follow-up usage, and sets input constraints. It omits latency/cost behavior and explicit error-handling guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters, putting the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning: it explains the practical value of schema_id (skip routing across 130 schemas, faster/more consistent, pair with curriculum_anchor for reporting) and clarifies student_response should be the student's own words, not a paraphrase.

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 names a specific verb+resource (diagnose a student's written explanation) and scopes it precisely to AP Chemistry / AP Physics 1 reasoning. It distinguishes itself from the only sibling, get_coverage, which is a different operation entirely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use: any free-response reasoning in AP Chem / AP Physics 1. Explicit when-not: 'not for single-word or numeric answers' and requires at least one full sentence. It also names the follow-up workflow (pass schema_id back).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources