Retrieve and query cached MySTU personal schedule data, refreshed from 7 days ago to 31 days ahead, for checking classes, exams, and events.
读取 MySTU 个人日程缓存，刷新范围为过去 7 天至未来 31 天。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: this reads a local cache and its data covers only the past 7 days through the next 31 days, which tells the agent about freshness and coverage limits.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and data window with no filler. Every clause carries 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition is incomplete on the input side and leaves the agent guessing about pagination and filtering.
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 has 0% description coverage and three parameters (limit, query, offset) with only titles and defaults. The description says nothing about any of them, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap; an agent cannot tell what query filters on or how limit/offset behave.
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 and resource (读取 MySTU 个人日程 = read MySTU personal schedule) and identifies the data source as the local cache, plus the temporal coverage window. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as get_tasks or get_exams, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_tasks, get_exams, or refresh_source, despite those siblings existing. The stated refresh window implies the data range but offers no when/when-not criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.