Skip to main content
Glama

learnworlds

List certificates

learnworlds_list_certificates
Read-only

Certificates awarded, newest first (20 per page), for a course and/or a user — at least one of course_id or user_id is required. LearnWorlds: GET /v2/certificates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, starting at 1.
user_idNoOnly certificates of this user (id or email).
course_idNoOnly certificates for this course id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully supplements that with the page size (20 per page) and sort order (newest first), which matter for pagination behavior. It doesn't discuss rate limits or total-count behavior, keeping it just under 5.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads sort order, page size, and filters, then states the required-parameter rule and the API endpoint. 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, ordering, pagination size, and the endpoint. It omits what a certificate record contains and how to page through results (e.g. stop conditions), which is a minor residual gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine semantic constraint not expressed in the schema: the course_id/user_id mutual requirement. It also clarifies the filter combination is conjunctive in spirit ('and/or').

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 ('Certificates awarded ... for a course and/or a user') and adds scope detail (newest first, 20 per page) plus the backing endpoint. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like list_course_users or get_user_course_progress.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — 'at least one of course_id or user_id is required' — which is a real routing rule since the schema marks zero parameters required. It doesn't name alternative tools for adjacent questions (e.g. per-user course progress), so it stops short of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.