Skip to main content
Glama

create_signup_field_values

Set all signup field answers for one learner in a single batch. Overwrites existing answers with the provided values, so read current answers first to preserve them.

Instructions

Set one learner's answers to signup fields. This is a BATCH operation.

    Despite the name this is an UPSERT: if the learner already has an answer for a
    field, that answer is OVERWRITTEN with no warning and no separate outcome code.
    Read the current values first if the old answer matters.

    `student_id` applies to every item - all values written by one call belong to
    one learner.

    Each item is `{id, value}` where `id` is the signup-FIELD id. This differs from
    `update_signup_field_values`, which takes the signup-field-VALUE id. Sending a
    value id here will silently create an answer for a field that does not exist, or
    fail as not-found.

    An unknown learner, or one with no membership in this organization, is a
    not-found error.

    Requires the `signup-fields:write` OAuth scope.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valuesYes
student_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes
noteYes
totalYes
failedYes
succeededYes
Install Server

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description is highly transparent about the upsert and overwrite behavior, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. The description explicitly warns that existing answers are OVERWRITTEN with no warning and advises reading current values first if the old answer matters, which directly contradicts the non-destructive annotation. Per the rubric this is an annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value caveats: batch behavior, overwrite warning, id semantics, error cases, and OAuth scope. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all critical calling context: batch nature, single-learner scope, field-id vs value-id distinction, overwrite behavior, not-found error cases, and required scope. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it compensates well: it defines each item as {id, value}, clarifies that id is the signup-FIELD id, and states that student_id applies to all items. The value parameter's type/format is still left unspecified, which prevents a 5.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set one learner's answers to signup fields') and immediately notes it is a batch operation. It later contrasts the field-id semantics with update_signup_field_values, so an agent can clearly distinguish this tool from its closest sibling.

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?

The description explicitly names the alternative update_signup_field_values and explains the key difference: this tool uses signup-field IDs while the sibling uses signup-field-VALUE IDs. It also warns about common misuse and notes the required OAuth scope, though it does not give an explicit 'use this when...' rule.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CloudSecurityAlliance/csa-skilljar'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server