Skip to main content
Glama

Open a study session

open_study
Read-only

Open or resume the study page for an exam, optionally focused on a domain or a sub-objective. Use this when someone asks to study rather than to be quizzed in chat: the page gives them a visible question they answer themselves, and once it is open a richer set of tools appears for reading and steering that screen. Returns the URL; a browser agent should navigate there.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
examYesExam slug from list_exams.
domainNoOptional blueprint domain, e.g. "d3".
sub_objectiveNoOptional concept, e.g. "d1.5". Ids are per-exam.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it opens/resumes a page, shows a visible question the user answers themselves, returns a URL, and instructs a browser agent to navigate there. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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 sentences, each earning its place: core action, usage context, and return/navigation behavior. The key purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately states the return value (URL) and the expected agent action. It could elaborate on what 'resume' means when a session already exists, but overall the essential calling context is covered.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents exam, domain, and sub_objective. The description rephrases domain/sub_objective as optional focus but adds no format, validation, or cross-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('open or resume'), a resource ('the study page for an exam'), and optional focus fields (domain/sub-objective). It also distinguishes itself from quiz-in-chat tools, so an agent can tell it apart from get_practice_question and check_answer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this when someone asks to study rather than to be quizzed in chat,' providing both a positive and negative usage condition. It also signals that subsequent reading/steering tools appear once the page is open, guiding the agent's next actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping job: catalog lookup, question retrieval, answer evaluation, progress reporting, and opening the study page. The descriptions actively set boundaries, such as distinguishing chat quizzing from the study page.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (list_exams, get_practice_question, check_answer, open_study) and all use snake_case. my_progress is the one outlier, reading as a noun phrase rather than an action-oriented tool name.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for an exam-practice server: catalog, question loop, progress, and study-mode entry all earn their place. There is no redundancy or obvious bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core study/quiz workflow is covered end to end: discover exam, get question, grade answer, review progress, and open the study page. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit domain-targeted chat drilling tied to my_progress and no full-exam simulation mode.

Resources