Skip to main content
Glama

Fiveable for AP Students

by io.github.thinkfiveable

Record a practice question answer

submit_practice_answer
Idempotent

Records the signed-in student's answer to a multiple-choice practice question so it counts toward their Fiveable progress. Accepts a question id previously served by Fiveable MCP and returns whether the answer was correct plus the explanation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answerYesThe displayed option label (for example "B" or "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.
requestIdNoReuse this ID for retries of the same answer; changed input returns a conflict.
questionIdYesThe practice question 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?

With annotations already covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the side effect of recording progress and the return of correctness plus explanation. It does not repeat conflict behavior, but the schema and idempotentHint annotation already capture that.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and scoping constraint before the return behavior, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 moderate complexity, full schema coverage, the output schema, and the idempotency annotation, the description is complete: it identifies the actor, the prerequisite question source, the effect of recording progress, and the returned information. No critical gap remains 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the multiple-choice context and that questionId must come from a Fiveable MCP-served question, but it does not go beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 specific action—'Records the signed-in student's answer'—and clearly defines the resource as a multiple-choice practice question. It adds the important consequence that the answer 'counts toward their Fiveable progress,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_practice_answer that likely only evaluate without recording.

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: use this tool when a signed-in student submits an answer that should be recorded and count toward progress, and the question must have been previously served by Fiveable MCP. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose this tool over related practice-checking tools.

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