Ranked member leaderboard for the community. period chooses the window: all_time (default), 30_day, or 7_day. Each entry carries rank and the points for the selected period, plus level info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, default 20 | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip, default 0 | |
| period | No | Defaults to all_time |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by disclosing that each entry contains 'rank and the points for the selected period, plus level info,' and explains period windows. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it clarify pagination behavior or ordering direction beyond 'ranked.'
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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence provides useful information: the resource, the period windows, and the response entry structure. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
For a simple read tool with three self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, response contents, and period semantics. However, it could be marginally more complete by explicitly noting that pagination via limit/offset applies and that the operation is read-only, though these are implied by the parameter schema and the tool name.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic context by explaining that 'period chooses the window' and that points are 'for the selected period,' which complements the schema's enum. However, it does not add further detail for limit or offset beyond the 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Ranked member leaderboard for the community.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('leaderboard'), and distinguishes it from other tools by describing the leaderboard specific to the community. The period options are explicitly mentioned, further clarifying its functionality.
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 implies usage for retrieving a community leaderboard and explains the period parameter window, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools like get_member_points exist but are not referenced, leaving the guidance implicit.
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.
