Skip to main content
Glama

BC Curriculum

by io.github.pdg6

Search BC Curriculum

search_curriculum
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search BC curriculum (K-12) for standards, competencies, content items, and assessment resources using full-text search. Returns structured results with source metadata.

Args:

  • query (string): Natural language search query (e.g., 'empathetic design thinking', 'coding and computational thinking')

  • subject (string, optional): Filter by subject slug (e.g., 'adst', 'science')

  • grade (integer, optional): Filter by grade level (0=K, 1-12)

  • content_type (string, optional): Filter by content type ('big_idea', 'competency', 'content_item', 'elaboration', 'assessment', 'all')

  • limit (integer, optional): Max results (default 10, max 50)

Returns: Matching curriculum elements with source type, course, subject, and grade metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeNoGrade level (0=Kindergarten, 1-12)
limitNoMaximum results to return (default 10)
queryYesNatural language search query (e.g., 'empathetic design thinking')
subjectNoBC curriculum subject slug (e.g., 'adst', 'science')
content_typeNoType of curriculum content to filter byall

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds that it performs full-text search and returns structured results with source metadata, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or any non-obvious behavior like default pagination limits beyond what the schema already states.

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 moderately concise and well-structured with a summary line, Args section, and Returns section. However, the Args section largely duplicates the schema descriptions, creating some redundancy. It is still front-loaded with the most important usage information in the summary sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the Returns section provides a brief list of metadata fields (source type, course, subject, grade) which is helpful but not a full structure. The incomplete content_type list in the description and lack of pagination/edge-case details leave gaps for a tool with five params. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description's Args section omits 'instructional_sample' from the content_type filter list, even though the schema enum includes it. This could mislead an agent into thinking 'instructional_sample' is not a valid value. The description does add example queries, but this inaccuracy undermines its value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches BC curriculum (K-12) for standards, competencies, content items, and assessment resources using full-text search. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'search_cross_curricular', which could cause confusion about which search tool to use.

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 provides clear context on what the tool can search (curriculum content types, with filters for subject, grade, content_type) and includes example queries. It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer alternative tools like 'get_course_curriculum' or 'search_cross_curricular', so it falls short of explicit when/when-not 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