Retrieves assignment instructions and lecturer attachments, and checks whether submission is locked pending face-photo authorization (status 2).
Mengambil rincian instruksi tugas, berkas lampiran dosen, dan memeriksa apakah tugas tersebut mengunci pengunggahan dengan syarat otorisasi foto wajah (status 2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tugas_id | Yes | ID tugas yang ingin dilihat rinciannya |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral value by disclosing the return contents and decoding the 'status 2' face-photo authorization lock semantics. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, whether authentication/session is required, or what happens for an invalid or inaccessible tugas_id.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant element (the upload-lock check) is included rather than buried. The sentence is somewhat dense with three stacked clauses, which slightly reduces scannability.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the agent needs: what comes back and the meaning of the lock flag. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about auth/session requirements or failure behavior, which is modest given the tool's simplicity.
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 100% for the single parameter tugas_id, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain the ID) beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('Mengambil') and resource ('rincian instruksi tugas'), and enumerates the payload: instruction details, lecturer attachment files, and a lock/face-photo authorization flag. This clearly separates it from sibling elearning_list_tugas (listing) and elearning_submit_tugas (submission), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no prerequisites are given. The mention of checking whether uploads are locked implies the natural pre-submission check flow, but the agent must infer that this tool should be called before elearning_submit_tugas rather than being told so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.