get-termsRetrieve available academic terms and the current default term with human-readable names, so you can select the correct session for Omnivox actions.
Get the list of available academic terms (sessions) and the current default term, with human-readable names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real behavioral detail the annotations lack: the response includes both the full list and the current default term, and names are human-readable rather than raw codes.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return scope appended as a qualifier. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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 is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value story, and it does at a high level: term list plus current default, human-readable names. It stops short of saying what fields each term carries (id, name, date range), which would fully close the gap.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no input to mis-specify and nothing the description could usefully add about argument semantics.
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 gives a specific verb (get) and resource (academic terms/sessions), and scopes the return as both the list and the current default term. No sibling tool in the list covers terms, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, though it never explicitly positions itself against anything.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup for term identifiers, but the description never says so, nor does it mention that these term IDs feed other calls or that the default term is what to assume when unspecified. No alternatives exist to disambiguate against, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than failing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.