Skip to main content
Glama

BC Curriculum

by io.github.pdg6

Get Course Curriculum

get_course_curriculum
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the complete BC curriculum for a specific course: Big Ideas, Curricular Competencies (grouped by domain), and Content/KDU items with elaborations. Returns the full three-column structure used by BC Ministry of Education.

Args:

  • subject (string): Subject slug (e.g., 'adst', 'science')

  • grade (integer): Grade level (0=K, 1-12)

  • course (string, optional): Course slug (e.g., 'technology-explorations'). If omitted, returns all courses for that subject+grade.

Returns: Complete three-column curriculum structure per course, including elaborations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeYesGrade level (0=Kindergarten, 1-12)
courseNoCourse slug (e.g., 'technology-explorations'). If omitted, returns all courses for subject+grade.
subjectYesBC curriculum subject slug (e.g., 'adst', 'science')

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns a three-column structure, includes elaborations, and explains that omitting course returns all courses for the subject/grade. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence, a bulleted Args section, and a Returns line. It is slightly redundant with the schema's parameter descriptions but remains readable and focused.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns, including the three-column structure and elaborations. It also clarifies the behavior when the optional course parameter is omitted, making it sufficient for this straightforward tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description's Args section essentially repeats this information without adding new semantics about formats or constraints, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource: the complete BC curriculum for a specific course. It lists the exact components (Big Ideas, Curricular Competencies, Content/KDU) and notes the three-column structure, which clearly differentiates it from sibling search/list tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (when the full curriculum structure for a course is needed) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions are mentioned, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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

All BC Curriculum 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct primary purpose: listing courses, fetching full curriculum, searching, tracking progression, and finding cross-curricular connections. The only potential overlap is between get_competency_connections and search_cross_curricular, both of which handle cross-subject discovery, but they differ in input and output (one is competency-text-driven, the other is grade-and-subject-comparison-driven), so confusion is unlikely with clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_ for retrievals, list_ for enumeration, and search_ for searching. The naming clearly reflects each tool's function, and there are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped count for a curriculum data server. The set covers the essential needs: discovery (list_courses, search_curriculum), detailed retrieval (get_course_curriculum), cross-curricular analysis (get_competency_connections, search_cross_curricular), progression tracking (get_grade_progression), and change monitoring (get_course_history, get_curriculum_changes). Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is quite complete for read-only curriculum access and analysis: it covers listing, full retrieval, search, cross-subject comparison, grade progression, and change/history tracking. A minor gap is that there is no dedicated tool to enumerate subjects or grades independently, though list_courses can filter by subject/grade and indirectly provides that information.

Resources