list_inactive_studentsActive students who have not finished a workout in the last N days (7 by default), with name, last workout date and days since, longest absence first. Students who never trained come first. Use it to answer "who disappeared this week?" and then get_student or list_student_sessions for one of them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Days without a finished workout, 1 to 30. Default 7. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the sort order (longest absence first), the edge case that never-trained students come first, and the returned columns. It does not discuss pagination or result caps, which is the only remaining gap.
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?
Three tight sentences: what it returns, how it is ordered, and what to do next. The most decision-relevant information (the filter and the ordering) is front-loaded with no filler.
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 optional-parameter, read-only query with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the filter semantics, ordering, edge case for never-trained students, and the natural follow-up tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage the schema already defines the single `days` parameter, its 1-30 range and its default of 7. The description restates the default and the N-days semantics but adds no new interpretation, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (students filtered by no finished workout in the last N days) plus the exact returned fields and sort order. An agent can distinguish it from list_students and get_students_activity without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for it ('who disappeared this week?') and names the follow-up tools (get_student, list_student_sessions) for drilling into a result. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it versus activity-oriented siblings, so it falls just under a 5.
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.