Quiz-score gradebook for a course: per-user quiz attempts, scores, pass/fail. Use for analytics or grading dashboards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, default 20 | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip, default 0 | |
| user_id | No | ||
| course_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. For a get tool, this lack of safety or traversal detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema field names or obvious fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is too brief to be fully actionable. It does not mention pagination (despite limit/offset parameters), response structure, or how 'pass/fail' is represented. For a tool of this complexity, the description should provide more context about the returned data and query behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (limit and offset have descriptions, course_id and user_id do not). The description adds some meaning by mentioning 'per-user' (user_id) and 'for a course' (course_id), but it does not explain limit/offset beyond what the schema already provides. Overall, the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as a quiz-score gradebook for a course, specifying per-user attempts, scores, and pass/fail status. This distinguishes it from any sibling tool, as no other gradebook tool exists. The verb 'get' is implicit in the name, and the description conveys the exact data scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'Use for analytics or grading dashboards,' providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the unique gradebook purpose makes alternatives less relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action combination, and similar-looking tools are carefully differentiated in descriptions (e.g., get_course_structure vs list_course_modules, update_lesson vs update_lesson_content). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools use a consistent 'hivelearn_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with common verbs (get, list, create, update). The only minor deviation is 'add' vs 'create' (add_track_course vs create_track), but this is semantically appropriate and does not disrupt the overall pattern.
With 57 tools, the server is significantly over the recommended range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad domain (courses, community, analytics) justifies a large surface, this many tools makes selection overwhelming for agents and suggests a need for consolidation or sub-servers.
The tool surface covers create, read, and update for most core entities (courses, lessons, quizzes, tracks, posts, events, resources), plus publishing/verification and analytics. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for courses, lessons, modules, quizzes, posts, events, resources, or enrollments, and no way to remove a course from a track. These lifecycle holes are significant but not fatal for common workflows.
