Daily Tutor MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_coverage

Identify untouched and weak subtopics plus overall coverage percentage for a topic to guide certification track study.

Instructions

Objective coverage for one topic (great for certification tracks): which subtopics are untouched, which are weak, and the overall coverage %.

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": {
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "get_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	Yes
`user_id`	No		default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (untouched vs weak subtopics plus a percentage), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics, cost, ordering, or whether coverage is computed across all materials or only a track.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first, then the returned breakdown. The parenthetical is slightly promotional but does add routing signal, so little is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a fair job describing the return content, which is the main gap. It still leaves user_id semantics and the relationship to sibling analytics tools (get_progress, weekly_recap) unexplained for a tool in a crowded reporting cluster.

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 both parameters are undocumented. The description clarifies that 'topic' is a single topic (not a list) and that coverage is per-topic, but the user_id parameter with its 'default' value is never explained anywhere, leaving half the surface opaque.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource (get coverage) scoped to one topic, and enumerates what the result contains: untouched subtopics, weak subtopics, and overall coverage %. It is distinguishable from get_progress in spirit, though the description never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical 'great for certification tracks' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no mention of get_progress or review_mistakes as alternatives. An agent must infer the choice 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.