UTN FRM MCP

get_discussion_posts

Read-only

Retrieves every post and reply from a Moodle forum discussion thread, including author, date, and Markdown content for review or analysis.

Instructions

Obtiene todas las publicaciones y respuestas de un hilo de discusión en un foro, con autor, fecha y contenido en Markdown.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "discussion_id": "<discussion_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_discussion_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`discussion_id`	Yes	ID numérico de la discusión (ej: /mod/forum/discuss.php?d=5963 o "5963")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about return contents (author, date, Markdown body) but says nothing about thread size, pagination, or truncation behavior for large discussions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, scope, and payload are stated immediately. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse given no follow-up caveats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations covering data volume, the description should note anything an agent needs about large threads or pagination. It covers what fields come back but leaves that operational gap, so it is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single discussion_id parameter is documented with a concrete URL/ID example, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (get all posts and replies of a discussion thread) and what is returned (author, date, Markdown content). It is distinguishable from get_forum_discussions by operating on posts inside a thread, but the description never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the follow-up to listing discussions, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative (e.g., when to use get_forum_discussions versus this).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.