Issue a certificate of completion to a user for a course. Normally the platform auto-issues on course completion — use this tool for bulk backfill or manual awards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| course_id | Yes | ||
| expires_at | No | ISO timestamp; omit or null for no expiry | |
| final_score | No | ||
| completion_date | No | ISO timestamp; defaults to now | |
| instructor_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation that bypasses the normal automated process, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, what happens if a certificate already exists, or the return value. These are significant gaps for a manual issuance tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose, and contains no unnecessary filler. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover prerequisites (e.g., enrollment/completion), duplicate handling, and return behavior. It covers only the core purpose and when to use it, leaving major operational details unaddressed.
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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It only implies user_id and course_id; final_score, instructor_name, and completion_date are not explained, and expires_at/completion_date semantics are left entirely to the schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail.
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 uses a specific verb ('Issue') and clearly identifies the resource ('certificate of completion') and target ('a user for a course'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling certificate tools (get, update, verify, list) by framing this as an issuance action, and differentiates from the normal auto-issuance flow.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Normally the platform auto-issues on course completion — use this tool for bulk backfill or manual awards.' This provides direct when-to-use guidance and contrasts it with the automatic alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action combination, and similar-looking tools are carefully differentiated in descriptions (e.g., get_course_structure vs list_course_modules, update_lesson vs update_lesson_content). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools use a consistent 'hivelearn_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with common verbs (get, list, create, update). The only minor deviation is 'add' vs 'create' (add_track_course vs create_track), but this is semantically appropriate and does not disrupt the overall pattern.
With 57 tools, the server is significantly over the recommended range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad domain (courses, community, analytics) justifies a large surface, this many tools makes selection overwhelming for agents and suggests a need for consolidation or sub-servers.
The tool surface covers create, read, and update for most core entities (courses, lessons, quizzes, tracks, posts, events, resources), plus publishing/verification and analytics. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for courses, lessons, modules, quizzes, posts, events, resources, or enrollments, and no way to remove a course from a track. These lifecycle holes are significant but not fatal for common workflows.
