Skip to main content
Glama

CourseShelf Holdings Summary

get_courseshelf_summary
Read-only

What does CourseShelf hold? From the records published with the build, read as published and never computed: per catalog area, how many institutions have loaded content and how many records were loaded; every table's row count; organizations by sector; the census of the whole index with its verdicts; and per-state counts and per-school verdicts where the build publishes them. Anything not published for this build is said so. Each row names its current FORM's wording source: source_url, capture_file, catalog_year and source_catalog_name are that one source's, never the record's whole span. A row whose record holds more than one form or more than one source also carries version_count, source_count, first_edition_seen and last_edition_seen, and one sentence saying so in words; a record with one form and one source carries none of them and reads exactly as it always has. The forms themselves, each with its own content and its own sources, come from the one-record get, never from a list. A record last seen in an older edition says so, because the Union keeps a record no current catalog prints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: the summary is read 'as published and never computed', unpublished data 'is said so', and a record's fields reflect only its current FORM's one source, not the record's whole span. These are substantive disclosure beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense, run-on block that mixes the tool's purpose with row-shape trivia, field-level rules, and a note about a sibling tool. It is poorly front-loaded past the opening question and contains many clauses that do not help an agent decide to call this tool. Verbosity actively hinders comprehension.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing what is returned, and it does name the returned elements (per-area counts, row counts, sector breakdowns, census verdicts, per-state counts) and the conditional row fields. It is wordy but substantively complete for a parameterless read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description cannot add parameter detail. Nothing here detracts; no parameter semantics are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening question 'What does CourseShelf hold?' and the enumeration of counts (institutions loaded, row counts, organizations by sector, census verdicts) do convey that this is a read-only summary of published build records. However, the bulk of the text describes row-level metadata (source_url, version_count, first_edition_seen) rather than the tool's purpose, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling get_dictionary_summary. The core purpose is inferable but heavily obscured.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is an implicit routing hint: 'The forms themselves... come from the one-record get, never from a list', which steers the agent to a different tool for detailed forms. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this summary versus alternatives, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than declared.

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.