List course enrollments, optionally scoped to one course or one user. Returns enrollment_id, user_id, course_id, status, progress %, enrolled_at, completed_at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, default 20 | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip, default 0 | |
| user_id | No | ||
| course_id | No |
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. It discloses the returned fields and scoping options, which adds value. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), nor does it explain filter combination behavior or pagination semantics beyond what the schema provides. It is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the action and optional scoping, the second lists return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 list tool, the description covers purpose, scoping, and return values. Pagination parameters are already in the schema. It lacks explicit distinction from get_enrollment and filter semantics, but overall is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema describes limit and offset, but not user_id and course_id. The description adds meaning by saying 'scoped to one course or one user', mapping these parameters to filters. However, it does not clarify whether both can be used together or how they interact. Overall, it partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('course enrollments') and clearly indicates optional scoping by course or user. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_enrollment (single enrollment) and create_enrollment.
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: it's the list endpoint for enrollments, with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_enrollment for a single enrollment, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
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.
