Skip to main content
Glama

Fiveable for AP Students

by io.github.thinkfiveable

Start an adaptive AP diagnostic

start_diagnostic
Idempotent

Starts Fiveable's canonical adaptive diagnostic for the connected student. Without a unitId it covers the whole course; an exact unitId scopes the survey across that unit's available topics. Returns one adaptive question at a time and creates durable diagnostic progress.

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.
unitIdNo
requestIdNoReuse this ID for retries of the same operation; changed input returns a conflict.
subjectSlugYes
courseVariantNo

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns one adaptive question at a time and creates durable diagnostic progress. 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 compact, purposeful sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: scope behavior, return behavior, and state persistence.

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?

Given the annotations and output schema, the description covers the core behavior and scoping rules well. It does not fully explain prerequisites for the 'connected student' or the semantics of subjectSlug/courseVariant, which prevents a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description compensates well for unitId by explaining course-wide vs unit-scoped behavior, and the schema documents intent and requestId. However, required subjectSlug and courseVariant rely mostly on name, pattern, and enum for meaning, so the low schema coverage is only partially compensated.

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 ('Starts Fiveable's canonical adaptive diagnostic') and clearly differentiates scope by unitId. It also separates this tool from siblings like get_diagnostic_results and submit_diagnostic_answer by describing the starting action rather than retrieving or submitting.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use it to begin the diagnostic for the connected student, optionally narrowed to a specific unit via unitId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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