Replace just the content of a lesson — URL, content_type, and optional description/duration/thumbnail. Narrower than update_lesson; safe for bulk agent writes. Does NOT change title, sort_order, or module assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| content_url | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| content_json | No | ||
| content_type | No | ||
| thumbnail_url | No | ||
| content_format | No | ||
| duration_seconds | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: it replaces content fields, preserves title/sort_order/module assignment, and is described as safe for bulk writes. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or response behavior, leaving some gaps beyond the stated scope.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds value: the first states scope, the second adds contrast and exclusions.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, output schema, or annotations, the description provides useful scope and exclusions but is incomplete. It ignores two parameters (content_json, content_format) and does not mention return values or error conditions, leaving important operational details uncovered.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly maps many schema params (content_url, content_type, description, duration_seconds, thumbnail_url) but omits content_json and content_format entirely, which are present in the schema. This partial coverage adds some meaning but leaves two parameters unexplained.
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 tool's function: 'Replace just the content of a lesson' with specific fields (URL, content_type, optional description/duration/thumbnail). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'update_lesson' by being narrower, which establishes a distinct purpose.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: 'Narrower than update_lesson' signals when to use this instead of the general update tool, and 'safe for bulk agent writes' adds an appropriate use case. The exclusion 'Does NOT change title, sort_order, or module assignment' clarifies what the tool won't do, guiding selection.
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.
