Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bunpro MCP

Bunpro MCP

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_self_study_srs_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve paginated self-study SRS details for Vocabulary or Grammar reviewables in Bunpro, so you can inspect study progress page by page.

Instructions

Get paginated self-study SRS details

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": {
      "reviewable_type": "<reviewable_type>"
    },
    "name": "get_self_study_srs_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
reviewable_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavior beyond that — results are paginated — but says nothing about page size, ordering, or what a result entry contains.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key noun front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and three sibling tools in the same SRS area. With that much ambiguity around it, a six-word description leaves the agent without enough to call this confidently or to prefer it over its neighbors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. "Paginated" loosely hints at the page parameter, but the required reviewable_type enum (Vocab/Grammar) and its effect on the response are never explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb and resource ("Get ... self-study SRS details"), so the agent knows the general domain. But "details" is vague, and nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_srs_level_details, get_ghost_srs_details, or get_srs_overview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative SRS-related tools. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools