get_lesson
Fetch the full study content of a single lesson.
Args:
lesson_id: Lesson identifier, e.g. 'junior-theory-1-4'.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lesson_id | Yes |
VenuVidya — Carnatic Flute Study Guide
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Fetch', implying a safe read operation, but omits details like output format, expected size, or any side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, no wasted words. Parameter documentation is integrated clearly. Efficient for a simple tool.
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?
Adequate for a simple fetch: explains what it does and the parameter. However, no output schema or mention of return content, which may leave agents guessing about the 'full study content' structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'lesson_id' with an example 'e.g. 'junior-theory-1-4'', adding useful context beyond the schema property name.
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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full study content of a single lesson'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_lessons' (which lists multiple) and 'get_class' (different resource).
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 purpose is clear—use to get full content of one lesson—but there is no explicit guidance on when to avoid it or comparison with alternatives (e.g., 'list_lessons' for overview).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ask_venuvidya is a RAG chatbot, search_syllabus is keyword search, list/get_lesson and list/get_class handle distinct resources, and log_practice_session writes practice data. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (ask, get, list, log, search). Even 'ask_venuvidya' uses a verb + proper noun, matching the style. Naming is predictable and scannable.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the core flows of a study guide: browsing lessons, searching content, logging practice, and retrieving class journals. This is well-scoped—not too sparse, not bloated.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers viewing lessons and classes, searching, and logging practice, but lacks write operations for lessons or classes (e.g., annotating or updating). However, the server's role is a study guide, and the missing operations are not essential for its stated purpose.