Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Codemm

Codemm

by iignaite
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

progress

Track learning status by summarizing mastery, difficulty, covered concepts, and the next recommended step.

Instructions

Course style, mastery, difficulty and covered per concept, and the next step. Covered means at least one lesson, all read.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the output content and defines 'covered' as at least one lesson with all read, but it does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it has any side effects, or how the data is structured.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and the second sentence defining 'covered' earns its place, but the first sentence is a malformed fragment rather than a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose. It is concise without being well structured.

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 parameterless progress summary with no output schema, the description should do more to explain what 'mastery' and 'difficulty' mean and how 'next step' relates to the sibling tool next_step. It provides a partial output sketch and a key definition, but leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing in the input schema to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description lists the data points involved (course style, mastery, difficulty, covered per concept, next step) but never states a verb or clearly says it retrieves a progress summary. It is more specific than a bare restatement of the name, yet still vague enough that an agent must infer the operation from 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no comparison to alternatives. The mention of 'the next step' overlaps with the sibling tool next_step, but the description does not explain when to call progress instead of next_step or get_roadmap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools