The recurring weekly timetable grid for a course in a year: weekday, times, ISO-week ranges, rooms, and a classified 'kind' per slot (lecture / exercise / lab / seminar / unknown). The compact way to answer 'when are the lectures for X' — filter on kind == 'lecture', since NTNU's own activity titles are free-form Norwegian text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| course_code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure and the fact that activity titles are free-form text, which is important for proper use. While it doesn't discuss side effects or errors, the tool is a simple read operation and the description adequately covers expected behavior.
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 two sentences long with no fluff: the first sentence defines the output, and the second provides a specific usage tip. Every word earns its place.
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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters, the description covers output fields, a filtering strategy, and a warning about free-form text. It lacks explicit year formatting but is otherwise complete.
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?
With 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions, the description only implies course_code and year by saying 'for a course in a year.' It does not explain year format or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer meaning from context.
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 explicitly states the tool returns the recurring weekly timetable grid with specific fields (weekday, times, ISO-week ranges, rooms, kind). It distinguishes from siblings like get_course_schedule by emphasizing the compact grid format and the classified 'kind' field.
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 provides a clear use case: answering 'when are the lectures for X' by filtering on kind=='lecture'. It also warns about free-form Norwegian text in activity titles. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention when not to use this tool over alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of NTNU course data: scheduling, exams, grades, comparisons, search, etc. Overlaps like get_course_schedule and get_weekly_timetable are clearly differentiated by granularity, with descriptions guiding usage.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using simple verbs like 'get', 'search', 'check', and 'compare'. The naming is uniform and predictable across all 12 tools.
12 tools is well-scoped for an informational server covering courses, schedules, exams, grades, study plans, and search. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set covers core CRUD-like operations for course data, including search, info retrieval, scheduling, exams, grades, and study plans. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for study program details or room information, but overall the surface is comprehensive for the domain.