LearningSuite MCP Server

learningsuite_assign_badges_to_user

Assign badges to a user by specifying the user ID and an array of badge IDs. Manage user credentials and recognition within LearningSuite.

Instructions

Assign badges to a user

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "badgeIds": "<badgeIds>"
    },
    "name": "learningsuite_assign_badges_to_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	Yes	User ID
`badgeIds`	Yes	Array of badge IDs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of disclosing behavior. It merely restates the tool's name in sentence form, offering no information about whether the operation is additive, requires permissions, is reversible, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple mutation, though it could have used the extra space to add behavioral context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks any explanation of return behavior, side effects, or prerequisites, and does not reference related tools. The schema covers parameters but not the broader context.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (userId and badgeIds) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action (assign) and the resources (badges to a user). It is distinct from the sibling remove_badges_from_user by virtue of the verb, but it does not explicitly call out this distinction or any nuances, so it does not fully merit a 5.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites, effects, or typical scenarios. There are many sibling tools for managing users and badges, and this description gives no context to help select this one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server