list_teachersEvery teacher on the business's list, with its id and sort order. Teachers' names show on the public page only while show_teacher_names is on.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_teachers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: teacher names are only exposed publicly while show_teacher_names is on, which tells the agent this list is account-wide and not filtered by public visibility. It stops short of describing result ordering or size.
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 short sentences, zero filler. The core scope ('every teacher, with id and sort order') is front-loaded before the secondary visibility caveat.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and only names id and sort order; it is silent on other teacher fields (name, email, branches) and on ordering. Adequate for a trivial zero-arg list call, but thinner than ideal given the absent output schema.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly signals an unfiltered full-list call rather than hinting at hidden options.
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+resource (list every teacher) plus the returned fields id and sort order. The purpose is unmistakable. It doesn't differentiate from the adjacent list_staff tool, which is a real sibling and could plausibly return overlapping data.
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?
No statement of when to use this instead of list_staff, lookup, or get_settings, and no preconditions. The only conditional in the text (show_teacher_names) governs visibility on the public page, not when to call this tool.
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.