Skip to main content
Glama

Fiveable for AP Students

by io.github.thinkfiveable

Get a saved FRQ scoring result

get_scoring_result
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the status or saved result of your FRQ scoring request. This never starts or retries scoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNoPrivacy-safe reason for the request. Use explain, quiz, notes, frq, or research; never send the student's raw prompt for analytics.
scoringJobIdYes

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool never starts or retries scoring, and by indicating that the response can be either a status or a saved result, which helps set expectations about partial vs. final outcomes.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying side-effect boundary is stated immediately after, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description is complete. It states what the tool reads, implies the ID-based lookup, and explicitly rules out write actions. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description does not explain the parameters, and schema description coverage is only 50% because scoringJobId lacks a description. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the pattern provides structural validation, while intent has its own schema description. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('status or saved result of your FRQ scoring request'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from scoring initiation tools by stating it never starts or retries scoring.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving an existing scoring request's status or saved result, and explicitly rules out using it to start or retry scoring. It does not name the alternative tool for starting a scoring request, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make the right call.

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