Edit a learning track. Only include fields you want to change. Set is_published=true to make it live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| is_featured | No | ||
| is_published | No | ||
| thumbnail_url | No | ||
| estimated_hours | No | ||
| difficulty_level | 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. It discloses partial-update semantics and a publishing trigger, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens when is_published=false, whether changes are reversible, or any error/validation behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized and free of redundant information.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essentials of usage but lacks information on return values, error handling, and unpublishing behavior. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive for the tool's complexity.
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 only explains one parameter (is_published) and gives a general rule that applies to all optional fields, but it does not clarify the meaning of id, title, description, difficulty_level, etc. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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 begins with 'Edit a learning track,' which clearly states the verb (edit) and resource (learning track), distinguishing it from create, get, and list operations. It also mentions a specific behavioral aspect (is_published) that ties to the update 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?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Only include fields you want to change' implies a partial-update (PATCH) pattern, and 'Set is_published=true to make it live' gives explicit guidance on publishing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer it is for modifying existing tracks.
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.
