Retrieve learners from the Curricula API by specifying route IDs in path parameters and using query parameters for filtering, pagination, sorting, or includes.
List learners. Calls GET /learners. Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| path_params | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly reveals the HTTP method (GET /learners), implying a read-only operationaine, and clarifies parameter placement. However, it does not disclose scoping, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or result characteristics beyond what the output schema provides.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful routing and parameter-placement details without wasted words.
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?
Given the generic schema and many sibling list tools, the description is serviceable but incomplete. It covers the HTTP route and rough parameter placement, but it does not clarify the learner scope or mention whether body values are ever used, which could lead to incorrect invocation.
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 the schema properties are generic open objects, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping route IDs to path_params and filtering/pagination/sorting/include values to query, but it does not list specific accepted query keys or explain the body parameter.
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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('List learners') and gives the exact HTTP route. However, it does not distinguish this from similar sibling tools like list_account_learners or list_assignment_learners, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 explains where to place route IDs and query parameters, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives. It does not state whether this lists all learners globally or within a particular account/assignment context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.