Skip to main content
Glama

Fiveable for AP Students

by io.github.thinkfiveable

Get a study guide

get_study_guide
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the full text of one Fiveable AP study guide as Markdown. Accepts the exact canonical guide reference or a close approximation of its title. Suitable when a student asks to learn or review a topic. It consumes one full-content preview for a free caller unless existing access covers this subject and feature. Expensive — a full guide can be 3-8k tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNoPrivacy-safe reason for the request. Use explain, quiz, notes, frq, or research; never send the student's raw prompt for analytics.
guideSlugYesCanonical guide reference from get_subject_outline, content slug, document id, or title, e.g. "/ap-bio/unit-2/cell-structure/study-guide/abc123" or "cell-structure".
subjectSlugYesFiveable subject slug, e.g. "ap-bio" or "apush". Use list_subjects to find it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoReadable tool result text for clients that consume structured output.
statusYesOperation status: completed, pending, partial, failed, unavailable, or a domain-specific outcome.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: it consumes one full-content preview for free callers unless access already covers the subject/feature, and it warns that a full guide can cost 3-8k tokens. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences carry the key facts: return format, reference flexibility, usage context, quota cost, and token size. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides the remaining operational context: size/cost, preview consumption, and when the tool is appropriate. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that guideSlug accepts 'a close approximation of its title', not just the canonical reference, which helps an agent pass user phrasing directly. The other params remain fully documented in the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full text of one Fiveable AP study guide as Markdown.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_cheatsheet or get_content_sections, which involve different content types, and states the scope of exactly one guide.

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?

It gives an explicit use context: 'Suitable when a student asks to learn or review a topic.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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

All Fiveable for AP Students toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources and actions, but a few close pairs exist, such as check_practice_answer vs. submit_practice_answer and get_content_sections vs. get_study_guide. Descriptions clarify the boundaries, yet the sheer number of similar get_* and list_* tools adds some selection risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with verbs like get_, list_, create_, submit_, score_, check_, and update_. The get_my_* and list_my_* conventions for user-specific data are also applied predictably.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent surface and will be heavy for an agent to navigate. The broad platform scope explains some of the count, but many tools could be consolidated or grouped without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major student workflows: content study, MCQ practice, FRQ scoring, diagnostics, study plans, key terms, cheatsheets, exams, assignments, and progress tracking. Minor gaps exist, such as no study plan deletion and no MCP-based exam or assignment submission, but these appear to be deliberate platform boundary limitations.

Resources