seneca_get_courseGet one course from a snapshot; course is null when absent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | Teaching-period code; not a curriculum semester | |
| as_of | No | Use the snapshot captured at or before this ISO-8601 time | |
| course_code | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No | Immutable snapshot id | |
| source_code | No | Source code, such as seneca |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the course is null when absent, which is useful beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation and adds clarity about the result in a missing-course scenario.
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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. The null behavior is stated efficiently in a second clause.
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?
Given the simple retrieval purpose and sufficient parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks an explicit output shape, but the null behavior note and schema context cover the main use case.
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 input schema already provides strong descriptions for most parameters, and the tool description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond stating the overall retrieval purpose. Schema coverage is high, so the description is adequate but not enhanced.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets one course from a snapshot and explicitly defines the null behavior when absent. It is distinguishable from sibling search and listing tools by focusing on single-course retrieval.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single course from a snapshot, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over sibling tools like seneca_search_courses or seneca_get_course_prerequisites. Guidance is present only through inference.
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.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.