Summarizes all questions in a quiz attempt as answered or unanswered across every page, helping you review attempt completeness using an attempt_id.
Get a summary of all questions in an attempt (answered/ unanswered), across all pages. UNVERIFIED against a real quiz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attempt_id | Yes | Attempt id, e.g. from start_quiz_attempt. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| questions | No | ||
| totalunanswered | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: the 'UNVERIFIED against a real quiz' caveat warns the agent that output shape/content may be unreliable, and 'across all pages' signals that the call aggregates rather than paginates.
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?
Two short sentences, zero padding; the functional statement is front-loaded and the caveat trails it without obscuring the primary 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, in a crowded quiz-tool family the description does not position this against get_quiz_attempt_data or get_quiz_attempt_review, which is the main thing an agent still has to infer.
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 100% and the single parameter's schema text ('Attempt id, e.g. from start_quiz_attempt') already tells the agent where to obtain the id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a summary of all questions in an attempt') and clarifies the returned dimension (answered/unanswered) plus scope ('across all pages'). That scope phrase implicitly separates it from paginated siblings like get_quiz_attempt_data, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the reference to 'an attempt' and the schema's pointer to start_quiz_attempt suggest calling this after starting an attempt. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_quiz_attempt_data or get_quiz_attempt_review, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.