Daily Tutor MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

start_track

Adds a certification track as a topic and turns its objectives into subtopics, enabling coverage checks to show which objectives remain untouched.

Instructions

Add a certification track as a topic; its objectives become subtopics so get_coverage can show which objectives are still untouched.

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": {
      "track_id": "<track_id>"
    },
    "name": "start_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`level`	No	intermediate
`user_id`	No	default
`track_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect — creating a topic and populating subtopics from the track's objectives — but it doesn't say what happens on repeat calls, whether existing topics are overwritten, or whether track_id must reference a pre-existing track.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and then states the payoff, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the creation side effect is covered. Still missing for a state-mutating tool are the meaning of the three undocumented parameters and the idempotency/duplicate-track behavior.

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 coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it doesn't: track_id, user_id, and level are never mentioned, and the non-obvious 'level' (default intermediate) has no explanation of valid values or effect.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Add a certification track as a topic') and explains the structural consequence — objectives become subtopics. That distinguishes it clearly from siblings like set_topic, add_material, and list_tracks.

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?

It tells the agent the purpose in the study workflow and points at the downstream tool it enables (get_coverage showing untouched objectives). It gives no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether the track must already exist or how it differs from manually calling set_topic.

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