Skip to main content
Glama

Spaced review

review

Run spaced-repetition practice for due or weak Greek-root cards, teaching each card first, then asking one question at a time and waiting for the learner's reply before answering.

Instructions

Start a short review of words that are due (spaced repetition: 1, 3, 7, 14, 30 days) or weakest. Same flow as a lesson: ask, then call answer. Act as a friendly tutor: teach the cards first in your own words, then ask ONE question at a time, wait for the learner's reply, and pass it to answer unchanged. Never reveal the answer before they reply.

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": "review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key interaction protocol: teach first, ask one question at a time, wait for the learner, pass the reply to answer unchanged, and never reveal the answer early. It leaves out session length, termination behavior, and what the tool returns.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by flow and tutor instructions. It is mostly efficient, with slight overlap between "ask, then call answer" and the later one-question-at-a-time instruction.

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 conversational review tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description covers purpose, flow, and tutor behavior well. It could be more complete by specifying how many cards constitute a review and how the session ends.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The 0-param baseline applies; the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: start a review of words that are due per spaced repetition or weakest. The scope is clear and distinguishes it from a general lesson, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling start_lesson.

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?

Says when to use it: for words that are due on the 1/3/7/14/30-day schedule or weakest. It also gives operational context by linking the flow to a lesson and directing the agent to call answer, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond answer.

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