list_teachersReturns the teachers who create the SuperȘcoala lessons, each with a short summary and a longer presentation of their background. Use it when someone asks who teaches on the platform or how qualified the authors are.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Return only teachers whose name contains this text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying the content of the return (summary and background presentation) and the scope (teachers who create the lessons), which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a direct usage cue. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. No additional information like pagination or ordering is necessary for an agent to call it correctly, and annotations cover the operational safety.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single optional 'name' parameter fully documented in the schema ('Return only teachers whose name contains this text'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the teachers who create the SuperȘcoala lessons'), and also describes what is included (a short summary and a longer presentation of their background). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle courses, lessons, packages, subjects, or platform info.
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 explicitly says 'Use it when someone asks who teaches on the platform or how qualified the authors are,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling list, this is the only teacher-focused tool, so the context is sufficient without explicit 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.