Retrieve a classroom's details by its UUID to access tutoring class information.
Get Classroom
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| classroom_id | Yes | Classroom UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| tutor_id | No | ||
| join_code | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| subject_id | No | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| price_cents | No | ||
| billing_interval | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear; the description does not contradict them. However, the description itself contributes no additional behavioral context such as error behavior, authorization requirements, or external data semantics, so it adds no value beyond annotations.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification, not elegant conciseness: every word ('Get Classroom') duplicates the tool name and title and adds no independent information. There is no sentence structure or lead information beyond the title.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the definition is minimally usable: an agent can infer the required argument from the schema and the read-only safety. Yet it lacks any explanation of the resource, selection criteria, or relationship to list_classrooms, so it is not complete enough for confident use in ambiguous contexts.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters, documenting classroom_id as a 'Classroom UUID', so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no extra meaning such as format examples or how to obtain the ID, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema documentation is complete.
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 'Get Classroom' is a tautology – it restates the tool name and title without adding any detail about what a classroom is, what fields are returned, or how it differs from sibling tools like list_classrooms. It names a verb and resource, but adds no discriminating information, so it only meets the definition of a restatement rather than a purposeful description.
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 provided on when to call get_classroom versus list_classrooms or other get_* siblings. There is no context about classroom_id being required or scenarios where this lookup is appropriate. This is 'no guidance'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.