Retrieve course details from Masaryk University's information system, including title, instructors, scope, credits, completion type, schedule, annotation, and e-learning link.
Detail předmětu: název, vyučující, rozsah, kredity, ukončení, rozvrhové časy, anotace, odkaz na e-learning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kod | Yes | ||
| obdobi | No | ||
| fakulta | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It is a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state this or mention potential limitations such as data privacy, availability, or that it only shows course information. The description lists output fields but not the behavior of the tool itself.
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 a single sentence that is concise and lists the key output fields. It is front-loaded with the topic. However, it lacks any usage context, but it is not overly verbose.
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 tool's simplicity (retrieving course details), the description covers the main output fields but fails to explain the parameters or usage context. Since there is no output schema, the description must be the primary source of information, and it omits how to specify the course (e.g., by code) and the role of 'obdobi' and 'fakulta'.
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%, meaning the schema provides no textual meaning for parameters. The description does not explain the parameters either; 'kod', 'obdobi', and 'fakulta' are not defined, and the description does not mention them at all. This is a significant gap.
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 states it provides details of a subject (course), listing the specific attributes (name, teachers, scope, credits, etc.). However, it does not differentiate it from siblings like 'moje_predmety' or 'hledat_predmet', which also relate to subjects, so it loses one point.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'hledat_predmet' or 'rozvrh'. It is a direct information retrieval tool, but the description does not clarify when to choose it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.