Skip to main content
Glama

Vocab Voyage

by io.github.jaideepdhanoa

record_word_result

Persist a single word answer (correct/incorrect) to the user's mastery progress. Mirrors the web app's word-mastery scaling so MCP study counts toward leaderboards and streaks. Requires sign-in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wordNoThe word answered (preferred for human input).
card_idNoCard UUID (preferred when known from a prior tool result).
is_correctYes
question_typeNoe.g. multiple_choice, fill_in_blank, flashcard.
quiz_attempt_idNoOptional quiz_attempt UUID to record a per-question row.
selected_answerNo
time_taken_secondsNo

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly labels the action as 'persist' (write), consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds behavioral context about leaderboard/streak impact, which annotations do not provide. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: action, behavioral impact, prerequisite. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers key aspects (leaderboard, sign-in) but omits details on parameter selection (word vs. card_id), success feedback, and error cases. With 7 parameters and no output schema, more guidance is needed for a complete understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 57%, leaving three parameters (is_correct, selected_answer, time_taken_seconds) without schema descriptions. The description only clarifies is_correct via 'correct/incorrect', but fails to explain selected_answer or time_taken_seconds, which an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('single word answer to mastery progress'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mark_word_known (which marks known state) or mark_word_difficult (difficulty level). The mention of mirroring web app scaling adds specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description states 'Requires sign-in' as a prerequisite but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as mark_word_known or get_flashcards. An agent is left to infer context from the action verb.

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

All Vocab Voyage toolsInspect
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 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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources