Retrieve a specific result from ClassQuill tutoring data by providing its unique result UUID.
Get Result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result_id | Yes | Result UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| mode | No | ||
| grade | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| started_at | No | ||
| student_id | No | ||
| vce_exam_id | No | ||
| completed_at | No | ||
| curriculum_level_id | No | ||
| homework_assignment_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not disclose return behavior, possible empty/open-world outcomes, authentication requirements, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but also no additional transparency from the description itself.
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 it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no useful content beyond the tool name, so it does not earn its place as a meaningful definition. A two-word tautology is not effective structure.
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?
The context signals show an output schema and complete parameter schema, but the description still leaves the concept of 'Result' unexplained. In a large sibling family of get_* tools and domain-specific list_ tools, the description is not sufficient for an agent to understand what entity is being fetched or when this tool is relevant.
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 coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter result_id is already documented as a "Result UUID". The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, but because the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 "Get Result", which merely restates the tool name and title. It does not explain what a Result is or what it represents in this domain, so it cannot be distinguished from the many sibling get_* tools such as get_session, get_payment, or get_student. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.
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 usage guidance whatsoever. The description does not state when to call get_result instead of finder tools like list_results, nor does it note any prerequisites, relationship to other entities, or conditions. The agent is left with no support for tool selection beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.