quiz_meTest the user's knowledge with real multiple-choice questions written for the blog's articles. Returns questions, options, and an answers section with explanations. Ask the questions first, then reveal the answers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many questions (default 3, max 10). | |
| topic | No | Topic to be quizzed on, e.g. aurora, lambda, docker. Omit for a random quiz. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool returns questions and answers together, and the agent must ask questions before revealing the answers. This is a meaningful interaction constraint that is not captured by the structured metadata.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, return shape, and the key usage rule. It is front-loaded with the main verb and avoids filler. Every sentence contributes essential information.
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?
For a read-only quiz tool, the description covers the core purpose, return contents, and the critical ask-before-reveal behavior. With annotations handling safety and the schema covering parameters, nothing essential is missing. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit output format, but no output schema exists and the description is adequate.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'count' and 'topic.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Test the user's knowledge with real multiple-choice questions written for the blog's articles.' It also lists the return contents (questions, options, answers with explanations), which makes the tool's purpose concrete. None of the sibling tools overlap with quizzing, so it is clearly distinguishable.
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?
The description provides an interaction guideline: 'Ask the questions first, then reveal the answers.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use quiz_me versus alternatives or name any exclusions. The intended use is implied by the content, but there is no direct guidance on selection or when not to use it.
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: search, browse by tag, read, cheatsheets, related posts, and quiz. The only mild overlap is between browse_by_tag and search_posts, but their descriptions make the distinction clear. get_commands also overlaps slightly with get_cheatsheet and read_post, but it explicitly limits output to commands only.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: list_*, get_*, search_posts, read_post, related_posts, random_post, quiz_me. The naming convention is uniform and predictable, making the tool set easy to navigate for an agent.
11 tools is well-scoped for a blog-focused server. Each tool serves a distinct content-access or discovery need without feeling bloated or redundant. The count feels appropriate for the domain.
The server covers the core blog workflow well: discovering topics, searching posts, browsing tags, reading full content, extracting commands, and finding related content. A minor gap is the lack of a simple 'list all posts' endpoint, but list_recent, browse_by_tag, and search_posts provide sufficient alternatives.