Daily Tutor MCP

by Fritnes

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

remove_topic

Removes a practice topic from Daily Tutor while keeping its quiz history intact.

Instructions

Drop one topic (history is kept).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_topic"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: history is retained after the drop. It leaves open whether the topic can be restored, what happens to dependent data, and whether a confirmation is required — significant gaps for a removal operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first and the retention caveat immediately after. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain prerequisites, cascading effects, and the user_id scope. It does none of these.

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% for both parameters. The description implies a topic identifier via "one topic" but never explains the `name` format or what `user_id` (default "default") scopes, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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: "Drop one topic". The singular scope plus the sibling set_topic make the direction of the operation unambiguous. It stops short of naming the boundary against related tools like remove_material, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to remove a topic versus the sibling set_topic, and no prerequisites (does the topic need to be empty, what happens to its materials/questions). The parenthetical hints at consequence but not at when to invoke it.

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