Return a learner's review items with current retrievability and due status, enabling informed spaced repetition scheduling.
Return review items with current retrievability and due status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | No | ||
| learner_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation and the phrase 'current retrievability and due status' describes the response, but no side effects, authentication needs, or edge-case behavior are disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the operation's purpose.
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 definition is too sparse for an agent to select confidently among review-related siblings because it never says how get_review_state differs from get_due_reviews. It also omits the effect of the optional node_id parameter and any notion of learner scoping beyond the schema's required field.
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 to the parameters; learner_id and node_id are neither explained nor contextualized. The parameter names and titles are self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Return review items') and names the key output fields ('current retrievability and due status'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_due_reviews, so it misses the top score.
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?
No guidance is given about when to call get_review_state versus the closely related get_due_reviews, submit_review, or recalculate_review_schedule. The agent must infer the intended use from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.