Retrieve the full text and attachment list for a Shantou University notice by item ID; optionally refresh from the cached school link. Accepts only known campus notice items, not arbitrary URLs.
读取通知正文及附件列表；refresh=true 从已缓存的学校链接获取正文，不接受任意 URL。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| refresh | No |
| 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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: refresh pulls from a cached school link and arbitrary URLs are rejected. However it never explains what refresh mutates (cache state) or how it relates to the non-read-only annotation, which the agent needs to reconcile.
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, front-loaded with the tool's function and then the refresh constraint. Every clause earns its place, though the punctuation-heavy semicolon structure slightly compresses two distinct facts.
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-format explanation is not required, and the core purpose plus refresh behavior are covered. Gaps remain around item_id's origin (how it is obtained from search_notices) and any pagination or error behavior, leaving the definition adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It gives real meaning for refresh (source is the cached school link, not an arbitrary URL) but says nothing at all about item_id, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 and resource: 读取通知正文及附件列表 ('read the notice body and attachment list'), which clearly distinguishes it from search_notices and read_attachment. It is a clear, unambiguous purpose, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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?
Provides an implied usage cue via refresh=true ('从已缓存的学校链接获取正文') and one exclusion ('不接受任意 URL'), but never states when to call this tool versus search_notices or read_attachment, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.