Retrieve the allowed review of a finished quiz attempt without recording a visit, enabling read-only access to attempt details for analysis or verification.
Lee la revisión permitida de un intento finalizado sin registrar una visita.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| attempt_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a key behavioral detail beyond that: it does not register a visit, which is not captured by the annotations. This extra context is valuable for the agent to understand side effects (or lack thereof) and aligns with the idempotent nature.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key behavioral nuance in a compact way. Every word contributes to meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool has only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, so complexity is moderate. While the description explains the core function and the no-visit behavior, it omits any explanation of the page parameter's purpose and default behavior (-1), and does not describe the return value structure. Given 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to call the tool correctly across all cases.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description does not explain attempt_id or the page parameter at all. It only describes the overall function. The agent is left to infer that attempt_id identifies the attempt and page might control pagination, but there is no explicit guidance, making this a significant gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Lee' - read) and a specific resource ('la revisión permitida de un intento finalizado' - the allowed review of a finished attempt), plus a distinguishing condition ('sin registrar una visita' - without logging a visit). This clearly differentiates it from sibling quiz tools like get_quiz_attempt_page or get_quiz_attempt_summary, which likely perform different reads.
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 the tool is for finished attempts and respects permissions, giving context about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent. It does not mention any exclusions or competing sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.