Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fiveable for AP Teachers

by io.github.thinkfiveable
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Report a content issue to Fiveable

report_content_issue
Idempotent

Submits a caller-requested content issue to Fiveable support, which may lead to support follow-up. Requires explicit confirmReport approval. The description contains the reported issue only, excluding conversation history, unrelated notes and personal information. Fiveable resolves content and reporter identity. Matching requestId retries are idempotent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contentType": "<contentType>",
      "contentId": "<contentId>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "confirmReport": "<confirmReport>"
    },
    "name": "report_content_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentIdYesExact guide/question/FRQ ID, or the exact canonical key-term path from Fiveable.
requestIdYes
contentTypeYes
descriptionYesOnly the issue the student wants reported; no conversation transcript or unrelated personal notes.
confirmReportYesTrue only after the student explicitly requests sending this issue to Fiveable.

Output 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.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write semantics and openWorldHint, but the description adds real context beyond them: support may follow up, only the reported issue is transmitted (no conversation history or PII), Fiveable resolves content and reporter identity, and matching requestId retries are idempotent. It repeats the idempotentHint already in annotations, so it falls short of fully additive disclosure, but the data-handling and follow-up behavior are genuinely new information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and approval requirement, and each sentence carries distinct information (gating, scope of payload, resolution ownership, idempotency). Slightly dense/packed, but no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive-capable write tool with an output schema present, the description covers the confirmation gate, payload scope, privacy handling, and retry semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not say what happens on failure or how support follow-up is surfaced, but the output schema can carry that.

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 60%, so the description must carry some weight, and it does: it constrains 'description' to the issue only (excluding transcripts and unrelated personal notes) and clarifies 'confirmReport' as gated on an explicit student request. It also notes idempotency keyed on requestId. contentType and contentId semantics are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits a caller-requested content issue to Fiveable support') with a clear destination. No sibling tool in the list does anything comparable, so an agent can route to it unambiguously. The purpose is stated in the first clause without requiring the title.

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?

It gives a hard precondition ('Requires explicit confirmReport approval') and scopes intake to caller-requested issues, which implies when the tool may be used. However, it does not contrast with any alternative action (e.g., answering the student directly or searching content first), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 Teachers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources