Get personalized study reminders for credits, enrollments, and obligations from Masaryk University's system, helping you stay on track with academic tasks.
'IS připomíná' — personalizovaná upozornění ke studiu (kredity, zápisy, povinnosti).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what data it returns, or how reminders are generated. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
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 concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool, though the non-English phrasing and lack of a clear action verb slightly reduce clarity.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks any behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, data source, personalization logic) and does not help an agent distinguish this from several closely related sibling tools. For a zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant ambiguity about when to invoke it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's mention of reminder categories (kredity, zápisy, povinnosti) provides useful context about what the tool surfaces, which is sufficient given there are no parameters to document.
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 the tool provides personalized study reminders (credits, enrollments, obligations), which is a specific resource and purpose. However, the verb is implicit ('IS připomíná' = 'IS reminds') and the description does not clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'deadlines' or 'harmonogram' that may also surface study-related obligations.
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 alternatives such as 'deadlines', 'harmonogram', or 'kalendar'. The description implies a general reminder use case but does not state exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.