classdojo_get_skillsRetrieve positive and needs-work skills with points and icons for a class, providing read-only access to review student progress without modifying ClassDojo data.
Reads positive and needs-work skills, including points and icons, without changing ClassDojo data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| classId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'without changing ClassDojo data' phrase is redundant but consistent. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is read: positive and needs-work skills, including points and icons. This is useful given there is no output schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation, the object, the included fields, and the side-effect profile efficiently.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the key behavioral and return-content expectations. It lacks explicit output shape or parameter clarification, but the absence of nested objects and the simple classId parameter make it adequately complete.
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 description does not explain that classId identifies the class whose skills are read. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but with zero schema coverage the description needed to compensate and did not.
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 uses a specific verb ('Reads') and names the resource: positive and needs-work skills, including points and icons. It clearly distinguishes itself from mutation-oriented siblings like classdojo_apply_skill_sync by explicitly stating it does not change data.
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 implies use for read-only retrieval of skills and says it does not change data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as classdojo_preview_skill_sync or classdojo_apply_skill_sync. Usage context is clear but exclusion criteria are only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.