Full points breakdown for one member (by auth user id) in the community: total, per-category (posts/comments/events/courses/engagement), period totals, level. 404 if the member has no points record here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | The auth user id (community_members.user_id) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the 404 error case for members without a points record, and clarifies the lookup key ('by auth user id'). It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a read-only get operation, this is solid disclosure.
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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the key information and enumerates the output components; the second adds the error condition. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description spells out the return fields and the 404 behavior. It does not explain the meaning of 'period totals' or the community context, but that is minor for this simple tool. The description is essentially complete for the agent to select and invoke it.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes user_id as 'auth user id (community_members.user_id)'. The description reinforces this by saying 'by auth user id' but adds little new meaning about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema covers it fully.
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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('member points'), enumerating the exact contents (total, per-category, period totals, level). It distinguishes from siblings like get_member (profile) and get_leaderboard (ranking) by detailing the breakdown.
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 context is clear: this is for retrieving a full points breakdown for one member. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the specialized scope and the 404 condition effectively convey its purpose. No exclusions are stated, so this remains a clear if not exhaustive guideline.
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.
