Retrieve the list of users registered for an exam by supplying its exam identification string. View all participants to support attendance tracking and result analysis.
List all users on an exam.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exam | Yes | exam identification string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| users | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.1.2Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "users": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "name of the examinee",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "user": {
+ "description": "user identification string",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "user",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "users"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.22Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, response format). It does not contradict annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently.
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 operation with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks details about output content (e.g., fields returned), but the output schema likely covers that. However, no mention of potential empty results or error conditions.
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 single parameter 'exam' is fully described in the schema as 'exam identification string'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'List all users on an exam' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('users on an exam'). It effectively differentiates from siblings like 'edubase_get_exam' or 'edubase_get_exam_branding'.
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 context (listing exam users) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edubase_post_exam_users' or 'edubase_delete_exam_users'. No when-not-to-use indications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EduBase/MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server