Skip to main content
Glama

Fiveable for AP Students

by io.github.thinkfiveable

Search Fiveable content

search_content
Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword search across every Fiveable study guide, unit, subject hub and key term. Suitable when the relevant subject or guide is not known. Returns titles and canonical references rather than full content, so it is cheap.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitYesMaximum results to return.
queryYesWhat to search for, e.g. "photosynthesis light reactions".
intentNoPrivacy-safe reason for the request. Use explain, quiz, notes, frq, or research; never send the student's raw prompt for analytics.
subjectSlugNoOptional: restrict the search to one subject.

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 safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it returns only 'titles and canonical references rather than full content' and notes that the search is cheap. This helps an agent set expectations about cost and output shape.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The main action and scope come first, followed by the use case and a key return-value caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of a full output schema, rich annotations, and a 100%-covered input schema, the description provides the missing context: the cross-cutting search scope, when to prefer it, and the lightweight return format. Nothing essential is left for the agent to infer.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds general keyword-search framing, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for query, limit, intent, or subjectSlug. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Keyword search across every Fiveable study guide, unit, subject hub and key term.' This clearly identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling get_ and list_ tools that operate on specific known resources.

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 gives explicit guidance about when to use the tool: 'Suitable when the relevant subject or guide is not known.' It implies the alternative is to use more targeted tools when a known resource exists, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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