List public courses in a region. Use offset to page through results.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"region": "<region>"
},
"name": "list_courses"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| region | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: results are limited to public courses, and results are paged via offset. It omits default page size, maximum page size behavior (the schema caps limit at 100), and whether an empty result means no matches or exhaustion.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one operational instruction. No filler, though the terseness is part of why the parameters go unexplained.
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?
Four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema mean the definition should do more work than it does. The pagination hint is valuable, but an agent still lacks guidance on what 'query' matches against, what a default page size is, or what fields a course record contains.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It hints at region filtering and explains the offset parameter's purpose for paging, but says nothing about 'query' (the text search filter) or 'limit' (page size, capped at 100), which are the two parameters an agent most needs to reason about.
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 ('List public courses') plus a scope ('in a region'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_regions and search_tee_times by subject matter. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named alternative.
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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants a region-scoped catalog of public courses rather than tee-time results. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites or rate limits, and no pointer to a sibling for related needs.
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.