Skip to main content
Glama

BC Curriculum

by io.github.pdg6

Search Cross-Curricular Connections

search_cross_curricular
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find curriculum elements shared between two or more subjects at the same grade level. Identifies overlapping competencies, big ideas, and content across subjects. Essential for interdisciplinary planning.

Args:

  • subjects (string[]): Two or more subject slugs to compare (e.g., ['science', 'adst'])

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

  • focus (string, optional): Which element to compare ('big_ideas', 'competencies', 'content', 'all'). Default 'all'.

  • query (string, optional): Narrow to a specific concept (e.g., 'evidence', 'design thinking')

  • limit (integer, optional): Max connections to return (default 20, max 50)

Returns: Groups of curriculum items connected by shared language across subjects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoWhich curriculum element to compare across subjectsall
gradeYesGrade level (0=Kindergarten, 1-12)
limitNoMaximum connections to return (default 20)
queryNoOptional: narrow to a specific concept (e.g., 'evidence', 'design thinking')
subjectsYesTwo or more subject slugs to compare (e.g., ['science', 'adst'])

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by stating it is a search operation. It adds behavioral detail beyond the schema and annotations by specifying the return format: 'Groups of curriculum items connected by shared language across subjects.' Since there is no output schema, this is valuable context for the agent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args list is useful as a quick reference but redundantly mirrors the schema, and the Returns line adds critical output information. Overall it is efficient with minor duplication, earning a 4.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: purpose, usage context, parameter details (via schema), and return format. It lacks a more detailed output structure but does not mislead. The annotations cover safety, making it reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with clear descriptions and enums, achieving 100% coverage. The description's Args section essentially restates the schema (same examples, defaults, and enum values) without adding new meaning. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not elevate beyond that.

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 'Find' and resource 'curriculum elements shared between two or more subjects at the same grade level,' then clarifies it identifies overlapping competencies, big ideas, and content. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_curriculum (general search) and get_competency_connections (likely single-subject). The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states 'Essential for interdisciplinary planning,' giving a clear use context. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It is more explicit than an implied usage but lacks a full when/when-not comparison with sibling tools.

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