Skip to main content
Glama

Fiveable for AP Students

by io.github.thinkfiveable

Check a practice answer

check_practice_answer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks one multiple-choice practice answer and returns correctness plus the Fiveable explanation. Works during an anonymous preview but does not save progress. A signed-in answer submission is required for saved progress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answerYesDisplayed option label such as "B", or the full answer text.
intentNoPrivacy-safe reason for the request. Use explain, quiz, notes, frq, or research; never send the student's raw prompt for analytics.
questionIdYesQuestion id from get_practice_questions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoReadable tool result text for clients that consume structured output.
statusYesOperation status: completed, pending, partial, failed, unavailable, or a domain-specific outcome.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds value by explicitly stating the non-persistence behavior and the anonymous-preview capability. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and output, and the second sentence isolates the most important behavioral caveat about saving progress.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple operation, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it checks, what it returns, and how it behaves regarding saved progress. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented, including answer format and questionId source. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise verb ('checks'), a specific resource ('one multiple-choice practice answer'), and the expected result ('returns correctness plus the Fiveable explanation'). It also distinguishes itself from a progress-saving submission path by explicitly noting it does not save progress.

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 clearly indicates this works during an anonymous preview and does not save progress, while noting that a signed-in answer submission is required for saved progress. It does not explicitly name submit_practice_answer as the alternative, but the boundary is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

All Fiveable for AP Students 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources and actions, but a few close pairs exist, such as check_practice_answer vs. submit_practice_answer and get_content_sections vs. get_study_guide. Descriptions clarify the boundaries, yet the sheer number of similar get_* and list_* tools adds some selection risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with verbs like get_, list_, create_, submit_, score_, check_, and update_. The get_my_* and list_my_* conventions for user-specific data are also applied predictably.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent surface and will be heavy for an agent to navigate. The broad platform scope explains some of the count, but many tools could be consolidated or grouped without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major student workflows: content study, MCQ practice, FRQ scoring, diagnostics, study plans, key terms, cheatsheets, exams, assignments, and progress tracking. Minor gaps exist, such as no study plan deletion and no MCP-based exam or assignment submission, but these appear to be deliberate platform boundary limitations.

Resources