list_iep_goal_areasList the skill areas in the IEP goal bank with descriptions and goal counts.
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_iep_goal_areas"
}
}| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (areas with descriptions and goal counts), which matters since there is no output schema; it does not mention result size or whether the list is exhaustive.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes before the details of what is returned. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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 zero-parameter, closed-world read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one missing piece: what a returned area looks like. The only gap is the absent hand-off to search_iep_goals for drilling into goals, which an agent would have to guess.
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?
The tool takes no parameters (empty object schema with additionalProperties false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4-5 applies and the description stays consistent with the no-argument contract.
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?
"List the skill areas in the IEP goal bank" gives a specific verb and resource, and adds what each entry contains (descriptions and goal counts). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_iep_goals, so an agent must infer the browse-vs-search split.
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?
Usage is only implied: a zero-parameter list tool is naturally a discovery/browse call, but the description never states when to reach for this instead of search_iep_goals, nor what to do with the returned areas afterwards.
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.