Open a homework assignment to retrieve its status and a structured question brief, enabling a client model to generate the answers needed for submission.
Open a homework and return its status plus a structured question brief.
The MCP client model uses the brief to produce the answers map passed to
uplus_answer_homework.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| course_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (status plus a structured question brief) and that the operation 'opens' a homework, but it never says whether opening has side effects (locking, marking as viewed), what auth or enrollment is required, or what happens on invalid IDs.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, with the second sentence adding genuine workflow value. Minor reStructuredText markup and whitespace add a little noise but no substantive waste.
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?
There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and returns; it names the return shape only generically ('status plus a structured question brief') without describing the brief's structure or status values, and it leaves both required parameters entirely unexplained.
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% and both parameters (task_id, course_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions either parameter, so an agent must infer that a homework is identified by a task/course pair with no guidance on format or source.
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: 'Open a homework and return its status plus a structured question brief.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling uplus_answer_homework by naming it as the downstream consumer, though it does not explicitly contrast with uplus_list_homeworks.
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 establishes a clear workflow context: this tool is the step that produces the brief used to build the answers map for uplus_answer_homework. It stops short of stating exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which this should be skipped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.