Retrieve a student group's details by providing its UUID, enabling read access to ClassQuill tutoring-business data.
Get Student Group
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Student group UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| tutor_id | No | ||
| avatar_url | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| subject_id | No | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| student_ids | No | ||
| classroom_id | No | ||
| rate_per_student_cents | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, and 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 short, but it is under-specified: it merely restates the tool name rather than providing a structured, informative definition. It reads more like a label than a description.
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 single parameter is well documented and the annotations are rich, the description itself provides no context about the entity, the lookup semantics, or when to prefer this getter over sibling list/get tools. The existing output schema does not compensate for the absence of usage context.
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 fully documents the only parameter, group_id, as a student group UUID, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema carries the semantic burden, yielding the baseline score of 3.
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 exactly restates the tool name and title ('Get Student Group'), making it a tautology rather than a meaningful definition. It does not say what a student group is, how it is identified, or how it differs from list_student_groups.
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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_student_groups or get_student. No context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.