Find LimClassroomStudent records - pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Fetch one record by id; omit to query many | |
| skip | No | Records to skip before the first result; 0 or more. | |
| sort | No | Sort field; '-' prefix for descending | |
| limit | No | 1-500; defaults to 50. Out-of-range values are clamped. | |
| query | No | MongoDB-style filter, e.g. {"status": "active"} | |
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read. The description adds the single-record vs filtered-list behavior, but it does not explain pagination defaults, sort syntax, filter semantics, or what the records look like. With annotations covering safety, additional behavioral depth is limited.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it is sparse enough that it could have carried one more useful clause without becoming bloated.
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 read-only query tool with an 83% schema coverage and no output schema, the most critical information is present, specifically the two query modes. However, the description does not describe result shape, typical record contents, or pagination and field-projection behavior, which are helpful for a tool with no output schema and six parameters.
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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the MongoDB-style query filter and the id semantics. The description restates the id-versus-query distinction without adding syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Find LimClassroomStudent records.' That identifies what entity is being queried and distinguishes it from siblings such as query_limclassroomcourse or query_limaccount. It stops short of stating how it relates to sibling tools, so it does not reach the top score.
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 states the two invocation modes: 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.' That is useful context for choosing between a lookup and a filtered list, but it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many other query_lim* tools, or when it is inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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.