List study materials for any course by code, with options to filter by subfolder or enable recursive search to include all files in nested folders.
Výpis studijních materiálů předmětu (složky: um/odp/ode/op + soubory s odkazy ke stažení). Cesta = podsložka (např. 'um/prezentace'). Rekurze=True projde i podsložky (max. 60 stránek).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kod | Yes | ||
| cesta | No | ||
| obdobi | No | ||
| fakulta | No | ||
| rekurze | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recursion traverses subfolders with a maximum of 60 pages and that files come with download links, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, or rate limits, beyond the implicit read nature of a listing.
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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and key parameter behaviors. It is front-loaded with the main function and adds relevant details efficiently, with no fluff.
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 complexity (5 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format (beyond mentioning links), default behaviors for 'obdobi' and 'fakulta', or error conditions. The lack of parameter explanations and output details leaves an agent with insufficient information to call the tool correctly in all cases.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'cesta' (path) and 'rekurze' (recursion) but leaves 'kod', 'obdobi', and 'fakulta' unexplained. An agent cannot fully understand all input semantics from the description alone, leading to 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 clearly states a specific action ('Výpis studijních materiálů') and resource (subject materials with folders and download links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'soubor_cti' by focusing on listing rather than reading a single file, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 provides some usage context (path as subfolder, recursion behavior, page limit) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions relative to sibling tools like 'soubor_cti' or 'predmet_info'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.