Retrieve a student's details from ClassQuill using their student UUID. Access tutoring-business student records via the read-only proxy.
Get Student
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| student_id | Yes | Student UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| status | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| parent_ids | No | ||
| placeholder_email | 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 covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as behavior on missing IDs, permission requirements, or whether the result is a single record or a wrapper object. It neither contradicts nor enriches the 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 and has no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It merely repeats the title, so it does not earn its place as useful content for an 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?
The tool is simple: one required ID, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, so much of the necessary context exists outside the description. However, the description itself provides no indication of what distinguishes a student from other entities or when this specific getter should be selected, leaving the agent to rely solely on naming conventions.
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 input schema fully documents the single required student_id parameter with type and a 'Student UUID' description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as expected format or how to obtain the ID, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.
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 Student' simply restates the tool name and title, making it a tautology rather than an informative statement of purpose. It contains a verb and resource but no scope, no detail about what is returned, and no differentiation from siblings like get_student_group or list_students.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_students, get_student_group, lookup_user, or any other sibling, nor does it describe conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.