Validate a learner's answer to a practice question without saving a review, providing immediate correctness feedback while keeping practice history unchanged.
Check an answer without recording a review
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | Learner's answer | |
| entry_id | Yes | Question entry ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | 原始 DeepTutor 工具返回值；其具体字段由对应 DeepTutor API 决定。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral trait that no review is recorded, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the side-effect-free nature of this operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key distinction with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its non-recording behavior. It does not explain what 'check' means in terms of return values, but the output schema likely handles that. No critical information is missing for calling the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (entry_id and answer), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action ('Check an answer') and the resource ('answer'), and the qualifier 'without recording a review' distinguishes it from the sibling tool record_practice_review. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it does not do.
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 phrase 'without recording a review' implies this tool is for checking when no review recording is desired, contrasting with record_practice_review. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide a when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.