Generate an assessment blueprint with rubric dimensions to score learner performance. Provide session ID to receive tailored assessment criteria for evidence-based evaluation.
Return an assessment blueprint with the rubric dimensions to score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| node_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| question_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Return ... blueprint,' which suggests a read-like operation, but it does not state whether anything is persisted, whether state is mutated, or what the side effects are on the session.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary semantic detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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?
Given four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex sibling set, this description is far from complete. It does not explain what the assessment blueprint looks like, how parameters shape the result, or whether the operation has side effects, so an agent lacks critical information for correct invocation.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters (count, node_id, session_id, question_type). It does not explain what count controls, how node_id scopes the blueprint, or what question_type values are accepted, leaving the required session_id and optional params semantically opaque.
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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('assessment blueprint with the rubric dimensions to score'), which clearly conveys the tool's core function. It is likely distinguishable from siblings like generate_diagnostic or assess_response, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as generate_diagnostic, generate_transfer_probe, or assess_response. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers are provided, so the agent must infer when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.