Record a student's quiz score and total to track progress by lesson topic.
Record a student quiz result for progress tracking
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | Score achieved, e.g. 8 | |
| total | Yes | Total possible score, e.g. 10 | |
| student_id | Yes | Identifier for the student | |
| lesson_topic | Yes | Topic of the lesson quizzed on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects. It only states 'record' without clarifying whether this creates a new entry, overwrites an existing one, or validates data. No mention of system side effects, data persistence, or potential destructive actions is made, leaving the behavior partially opaque.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is free of unnecessary jargon, redundant phrases, or extraneous details, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
For a simple tool with a fully descriptive schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context. It explains the purpose without missing critical information about inputs or expected behavior, though it could benefit from a brief note on when this is typically invoked (e.g., after a quiz).
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., 'Score achieved', 'Total possible score'), achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Record'), the specific resource ('a student quiz result'), and the purpose ('for progress tracking'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_student_progress' which retrieves data, and 'calculate' which performs computations.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the purpose ('progress tracking') but does not specify conditions, such as after a quiz completion or how it relates to other recording tools. No alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.