Classroom Suite MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair: courses, assignments, submissions, Drive files, and Docs all have clearly separated tools. Even similar tools like list_files and search_files are disambiguated by browsing vs. searching.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_courses, get_assignment, create_folder, export_pdf). There are no mixed naming conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count4/5
17 tools is slightly above the ideal range, but the server covers two related domains: classroom workflows and Google Drive/Docs. The count feels heavy but still scoped; each tool has a clear role.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core student workflows well: viewing courses and assignments, listing and submitting work, and managing Drive files and Docs. Notable gaps exist on the teaching side—no assignment creation, grading, or return submission—and document deletion is absent, but these may be outside the intended scope.
Average 3.9/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool searches by name or content and returns a list, but it does not explain scope, matching semantics, pagination behavior, permissions, or whether content search is exact or fuzzy. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. The only minor issue is that the Args section largely repeats the schema parameter names with little added value, but overall there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics: what it searches, the query parameter, page size, and return type. However, it lacks behavioral context like scope, order, and edge cases. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent that may need to decide between search_files and list_files.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates the parameter names: 'query' is a 'Search query string' and 'page_size' is 'Maximum number of results.' These add minimal meaning beyond the schema types and do not explain query syntax, matching rules, or how page_size behaves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search for files by name or content.' This clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_files, leaving some potential ambiguity about when each should be used.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_files. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or exclusions. The word 'search' implies usage, but there is no direct comparison or routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that listing can be scoped by folder, filtered by MIME type, and limited by page size, and states the returned fields. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination behavior beyond page_size, sorting, or whether subfolders are included recursively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains all parameters and the shape of the result. It falls slightly short by not addressing the relationship to search_files or any behavioral caveats such as recursive listing or authentication requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines all three parameters with meaningful semantics: folder_id's 'None for all files', page_size as a maximum, and file_type as a MIME filter with an example. It lacks only minor detail such as page_size bounds or folder ID format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('files and folders in Google Drive'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It is distinguishable from course/assignment siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly scoped sibling 'search_files'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'search_files' for searching, nor does it state any exclusions or preferred conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and first line alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description alone must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses mode placement and that a confirmation is returned, but it never states what 'replace' does to existing content, whether permissions are needed, or how failures are handled—critical for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: one-purpose sentence, a clean Args block, and a Returns line. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
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?
It provides enough detail to call the tool with valid arguments and understand the basic return. However, the lack of annotations plus missing details about replace semantics, document existence requirements, and error cases leaves an agent with meaningful uncertainty about side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates by explaining all three parameters: document_id, text, and mode with its allowed values. It is slightly weakened by describing text as 'Text to add,' which is awkward for the replace mode, and by not defining how replace applies the text.
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 opening sentence 'Update content in a Google Doc' identifies the operation and target resource, and the three modes (append/prepend/replace) make the update behavior concrete. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_doc and read_doc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool versus create_doc, read_doc, or export_pdf. There are no stated prerequisites or conditions, so an agent must infer from the function name that it operates on an existing document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates a read-only operation and specifies the returned fields (id, title, text content), but it leaves out permission requirements, error cases, and text format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure without unnecessary fluff. The Returns section is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, but it still adds useful clarity at minimal length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one required parameter, no nested objects, and a documented output schema, so the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit error or permission notes, but for a simple read operation these are not critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare string parameter. 'document_id: ID of the document' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name, but does not provide format guidance, examples, or how to locate the ID.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Google Doc'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like create_doc, update_doc, and export_pdf, which involve different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving Google Doc content, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as download_file or export_pdf, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing that this is a mutating operation. It does say 'Create' and lists the returned document fields, which covers the core behavior. However, it does not mention required Drive permissions, failure modes, or constraints around folder_id, so behavioral transparency is only partial.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clean Args/Returns structure. There is no filler or repetition, and each listed item earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool, the description covers what the tool does, the parameter roles, and the returned shape, and an output schema exists to formalize return values. It would be more complete with usage guidance or permission/error notes, but the essential invocation context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning, and it does: title is 'Document title', content is 'Optional initial text content', and folder_id is 'Folder to create the doc in'. This goes beyond the raw type/required information in the schema, though it could add more detail about content format or folder_id format.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Google Doc.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like read_doc, update_doc, and delete_file. The Args/Returns structure further reinforces what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement about when to use create_doc versus alternatives such as upload_file, create_folder, or update_doc. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the function name and sibling list, which is not reliable. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior detail: the as_base64 flag is explained as a way to get content for binary files, and the return shape is stated. However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, error behavior, or how content is encoded when as_base64 is false.
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?
The description is compact and well-structured with Purpose, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes either to the tool's purpose, parameter meaning, or output shape. There is no redundant or fluff content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter download tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what to pass and what to expect back. It is mostly complete, but the lack of any alternative routing guidance and the absence of explicit read-only/no-side-effect disclosure leave minor gaps given that annotations are entirely absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for the parameters. file_id is minimally described as 'ID of the file,' but as_base64 receives a meaningful explanation ('Return content as base64 (for binary)'), and the Returns line clarifies what the output looks like. This is useful but could go further, e.g., by clarifying the default behavior when as_base64 is not supplied.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download a file from Google Drive.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file, delete_file, list_files, and search_files. The rest of the description reinforces the purpose by documenting the arguments and return shape.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use download_file versus alternatives such as read_doc, export_pdf, or list_files. It also does not mention prerequisites beyond file_id, such as access permissions or which file types are supported. The agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' and 'Returns' strongly indicate a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not mention error behavior, permissions, or any caveats. This is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool but not richly transparent.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every line adds relevant information and there is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter GET-style tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential call context: what the tool does, the required parameter, and a concise summary of results. It lacks explicit guidance on related tools or error cases, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and calling the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains course_id as 'The ID of the course to retrieve,' which adds a minimal definition but largely restates the parameter name. It does not explain how to obtain the ID or any format constraints, but the meaning is clear enough for a single simple parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific course.' The word 'specific' clearly differentiates it from the sibling list_courses, and the resource is unambiguous against get_assignment and other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific course' implies this is for fetching one known course by ID rather than listing all courses, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is present but only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that drive_file_ids and link_urls are attached and that the submission is updated with state and timestamp, but it does not address whether the submission is final/irreversible, whether existing attachments are replaced, or any permission requirements. This leaves a meaningful transparency gap for a mutating action.
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?
The description is a tight docstring: one purpose sentence, a flat list of five parameters, and a one-line Returns. There is no filler, no repetition of schema types, and each sentence earns its place.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers all inputs and even describes the return shape, which is functional. However, it omits when-to-use guidance and behavioral caveats; with an output schema present, the Returns line is not essential, so the missing usage and side-effect context keeps this from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block must compensate, and it does. Every parameter gets a meaningful one-liner, including clarifying that submission_id is 'your student submission' and specifying the comma-separated formats and attachment intent for drive_file_ids and link_urls.
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 opens with 'Submit work to an assignment,' a specific verb-resource combination that clearly identifies the operation. It is also easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_submissions, upload_file, and update_doc, none of which finalize an assignment submission.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives, nor does it state preconditions or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the final submission step rather than a draft update or file upload.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a list and includes state, grade, and links, and it documents the filtering behavior of 'states' and pagination via 'page_size'. It does not disclose defaults for omitted parameters, ordering, authorization expectations, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the implication of 'list'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section, each line earning its place. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. A minor typo ('Comma-separated' written as 'Comma-separated') and the slightly mechanical format prevent a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, two required, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential calling context: what the tool does, what each parameter means, and what the return contains. It does not clarify behaviors like default state filtering or maximum page_size bounds, but these are minor given the output schema and simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: course_id and assignment_id are identified as IDs, page_size is described as the maximum return count, and states is detailed with comma-separated valid values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema names.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all submissions for an assignment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assignments or list_files, and 'for an assignment' makes the scope precise. It leaves no ambiguity about the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the description: call it when you need submissions tied to a specific course and assignment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using list_assignments when you need assignments rather than submissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that binary content should be base64-encoded and that the tool returns an uploaded file with id and link. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, overwrite behavior, or limits.
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?
The description is compact and well-organized into Args and Returns sections. Every line provides necessary information, with no fluff or redundant elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives all parameter semantics and the return value, making it largely complete for a moderate-complexity upload tool. It lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but the presence of an output schema and clear parameter docs covers most of what an agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: Filename, text/base64 content, MIME type, parent folder ID, and the is_base64 flag. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema types and defaults.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Upload a file to Google Drive.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_files, download_file, and delete_file, and the Args/Returns sections clarify the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_doc or share_file. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisite conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the return format ('PDF as base64 with filename and size'), but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether permissions are required, or how failures are surfaced.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every line adds necessary information with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter export tool with an output schema, the description provides enough input and output information to call it correctly. It lacks explicit exclusions or usage alternatives, but the narrow scope keeps it nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting the only parameter as 'ID of the document.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema and fully covers the single required parameter.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Export a Google Doc as PDF.' This distinguishes it from siblings like read_doc or download_file by making the output format explicit, and the Returns line reinforces the deliverable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a PDF rendering of a Google Doc is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus download_file or read_doc, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides return fields and defines page_size as a cap, but it does not reconcile 'List all assignments' with a page_size limit or mention pagination, ordering, or invalid-course behavior.
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?
The description is compact and scannable: a purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. There is no fluff or repeated context, and each line carries necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: course scoping and a page-size limit. Minor details such as how course_id is obtained or behavior when page_size exceeds the total could be added, but they are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It usefully defines page_size as the maximum number of assignments, but course_id is only described as 'the ID of the course', which adds little beyond the property name. Thus compensation is partial.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all assignments for a specific course.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as list_courses and list_submissions, which operate on different resources.
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 does not name alternatives explicitly, but the phrase 'for a specific course' establishes clear usage context: call this when you have a course_id and need its assignments. It provides enough guidance for straightforward selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing and specifies the returned fields, but it does not clarify the default behavior of course_states when null, whether pagination beyond page_size is supported, or whether results are sorted. These are meaningful gaps for a list endpoint.
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?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, concise args explanations, and a clear returns section. Every part contributes directly to correct invocation, with no filler or repetition.
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?
Given the low complexity, optional parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the unspecified default filtering behavior for course_states and the lack of pagination details, which could cause an agent to call the tool with incorrect assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does. It explains page_size as the maximum number of courses and enumerates valid course_states values, adding real meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it stops short of explaining what null course_states means, so the semantics are not fully complete.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all courses the authenticated user is enrolled in.' This clearly distinguishes list_courses from siblings like get_course, list_assignments, and list_files, and the scope is unambiguous.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the goal is to list the authenticated user's enrolled courses. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_course for a single course, but the 'all courses' phrasing makes the intended use evident without being misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive nature and distinguishes two behaviors: move to trash or permanent deletion. It could add more context about irreversibility or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded summary followed by a clear Args and Returns section. Every line provides useful information with no unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what it does, what the parameters mean, and what to expect back. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit warning about the irreversibility of permanent deletion and any permission requirements, which would be valuable for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: file_id is the ID of the file and permanent controls whether the deletion is permanent. It does not explicitly state the default behavior when permanent is false, but the parenthetical 'move to trash or permanent' and the schema default make this inferable.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a file', and adds the important distinction between moving to trash and permanent deletion. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_files, download_file, and share_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but the description provides no explicit guidance about conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No alternative deletion tool exists among siblings, so the lack of alternatives is not critical, but the guidance is still implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return content ('description, materials, and due date') and the read-only nature through the verb 'Get.' However, it does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or whether results can be empty, which would be useful for a tool with zero annotations.
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?
The description is tightly structured with a one-sentence purpose statement, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every line adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, both parameters are documented, and an output schema exists, so the return details do not need to be exhaustively repeated. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, though slightly more guidance about choosing this over list_assignments would round it out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'course_id: The ID of the course' and 'assignment_id: The ID of the assignment.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more specific about where these IDs originate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific assignment.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_assignments (list vs. single item) and get_course (different resource). No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description implies when to use it—when you need details for one specific assignment rather than a list—and provides the two required identifiers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation, its two modes, and the return value, but omits prerequisites such as required permissions and whether existing shares are preserved or replaced. That makes it acceptable but not fully transparent.
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?
The description is compact: a one-sentence summary, a four-line Args list, and a returns line. Every line adds value and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers the action, all parameters, and the return value. It does not cover edge cases such as supplying both email and anyone, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly from this definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the Args list fully compensates by explaining every parameter: file_id, email, role, and anyone each receive a meaningful one-line description. This is exactly what the schema lacks.
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 opens with 'Share a file with users or make it public,' a specific verb-object-target statement. It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling file tools (upload, download, delete) by naming the exact action and the two modes.
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?
No explicit alternative tools are mentioned, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the context is unmistakable: use this tool to grant access to a file, and no sibling tool covers file sharing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies the mutation (creating a folder), scopes it to Google Drive, and documents the return value (created folder with id and link). It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but for this simple create operation the stated behavior is sufficiently transparent.
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?
The description is compact, front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, and uses an Args/Returns structure with no filler. Every sentence adds information needed to call the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter folder-creation tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the input semantics, optional parent behavior, and return shape. There are no missing details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does by naming each parameter and explaining the parent_id behavior with 'None for root.' The name parameter's explanation is minimal, but the parent_id guidance adds a semantic distinction beyond the schema's type and default.
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 first line states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('new folder in Google Drive'), and folder creation is distinct from sibling file operations like upload_file, search_files, and share_file. The purpose is unmistakable and correctly matches the tool name.
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?
The description gives clear context: use this tool when the goal is to create a folder in Google Drive, not to upload or manipulate files. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a folder-creation tool the intended trigger is obvious and no exclusion is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![classroom-suite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anasdevai/classroom-suite-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anasdevai/classroom-suite-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![classroom-suite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anasdevai/classroom-suite-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anasdevai/classroom-suite-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/anasdevai/classroom-suite-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server