Use this when the signed-in user asks about their own streak, XP, words mastered, recent activity, or 'how am I doing'. Auth-only personal dashboard. Renders the interactive Vocab Voyage progress widget on supporting hosts; falls back to markdown elsewhere. Anonymous callers receive a sign-in prompt. Do not use for global stats or other users' progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by describing rendering behavior (widget vs markdown fallback) and anonymous caller handling, going beyond 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?
Four sentences with no wasted words; front-loaded with primary use case and key constraints.
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?
Covers auth, rendering, and usage boundaries adequately for a simple 0-parameter tool with no output schema; minor gap on return format but not critical.
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?
No parameters exist; description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools per guidelines.
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 is for signed-in users asking about their own streak, XP, words mastered, etc., and explicitly distinguishes from global or other users' progress, matching sibling tool differentiation.
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 when-to-use (personal progress queries) and when-not-to-use (global stats, other users), but does not name specific alternative tools, though sibling list implies context.
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 clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. A few pairs like study_plan_preview vs get_study_plan_recommendation or get_definition vs explain_word_in_context have subtle overlaps, but descriptions effectively differentiate them.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are longer but follow the same structure. No mixing of conventions, though the variety of verbs is high.
31 tools is on the high side for a vocabulary server. The scope is broad (definition, quizzes, games, progress, parent/tutor features), but many tools are specific, making the set feel heavy. It earns its count but could be trimmed.
The tool surface covers most user needs: learning, testing, progress tracking, parental involvement, and support. Minor gaps like class management or deletion operations exist, but core vocabulary workflows are complete.