Deprecated compatibility view of original numbered content levels; use paths for current learning paths. (Deprecated alias for academy_legacy_levels; retained for one version.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | MCP transport locale; not a service input field. | de |
| idempotencyKey | No | Transport retry key, forwarded as Idempotency-Key. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| messages | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueInput schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Deprecated alias: legacy fields are normalized and strictly validated by Academy."Input schema / properties / idempotencyKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Transport retry key, forwarded as Idempotency-Key.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / locale / defaultAdded value: +"de"Input schema / properties / locale / descriptionPrevious value: -"Language. de=German, en=English, es=Spanish. Default en."New value: +"MCP transport locale; not a service input field."Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "oneOf": [
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "errors": {
+ "maxItems": 0
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "levels": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "href": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "lessonCount": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "level": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "level",
+ "title",
+ "href",
+ "lessonCount"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "levels"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "const": true
+ }
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "errors": {
+ "minItems": 1
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "const": false
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "properties": {
+ "errors": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "documentation_url": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "hint": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "slug",
+ "message",
+ "hint",
+ "documentation_url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "messages": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "request_id": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "result": {},
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "result",
+ "errors",
+ "messages",
+ "request_id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the crucial lifecycle fact that this is deprecated and 'retained for one version'. It doesn't say what deprecation means at runtime (warnings, empty results), but the sunset horizon is the key context an agent needs.
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 tightly packed sentences: the deprecation status and the redirect to paths come first, with no filler. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.
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-required-parameter deprecated alias with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it is, that it's going away, and where to go instead.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (locale, idempotencyKey) are documented as transport-level fields, so the description carries no burden here. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.
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?
Identifies the resource ('original numbered content levels') and its status as a deprecated compatibility view, and explicitly contrasts it with 'paths for current learning paths'. It falls short of a crisp verb+resource statement (the actual operation — list vs. fetch — is only implied), but an agent can still distinguish it from siblings.
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?
Gives an explicit directive: don't use this, use paths for current learning paths, and names academy_legacy_levels as the canonical tool it aliases. Both the when-not and the alternative are stated outright.
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.