Fetch a lesson participant's details using their UUID to access participant records from tutoring data.
Get Lesson Participant
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| participant_id | Yes | Lesson participant UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| attendance | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| invited_at | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| student_id | No | ||
| cancelled_at | No | ||
| responded_at | 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what the participant represents, whether lookup failures return null, or any relationship to lessons.
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 rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the tool name and provides no useful information to the agent.
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?
Although the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description still fails to explain what a lesson participant is, how this tool differs from similar get_* tools, or any context about the lookup. A simple single-parameter getter could be adequately described in one or two sentences, but this provides none of that value.
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 100% because participant_id is described as 'Lesson participant UUID'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already fully documents the only parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 is exactly the tool name, 'Get Lesson Participant', which is a tautology. It states no verb beyond the name and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling get_* tools such as get_student, get_session, or get_availability.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_lesson_participants or other get_* tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent gets no help selecting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.