Fetch MySTU and Yuketang course data from local caches for Shantou University, using each source's available semester; supports source, query, limit, and offset filters.
读取 MySTU/雨课堂课程缓存；各来源独立登录，使用最新可用学期。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| source | No | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuine context beyond that: each source logs in independently and the latest available semester is used. It still omits caching/refresh semantics or pagination behavior, so it is useful but not rich.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the behavioral clause is packed in rather than separated for scanability.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance, the description is thinner than a four-parameter, multi-source read tool warrants.
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% across four parameters (limit, query, offset, source), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It only hints at 'sources' generally and never maps to the source/query/limit/offset arguments, leaving them undocumented in both places.
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 (读取/read) and resource (MySTU/雨课堂课程缓存), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_course_resources and get_grades. It is clear about scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling.
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 explains source-login behavior and semester selection but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives (e.g. get_course_resources vs get_courses). The agent must infer the selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.