Get a join link for a ClassQuill tutoring organization. Use this link to invite users or grant access to organization data.
Org Join Link
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tutor_url | No | ||
| tutor_code | No | ||
| student_url | No | ||
| student_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the title, such as what the link represents or what organization context is relevant.
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 very brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single noun phrase provides no structured or front-loaded guidance for 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?
Despite having an output schema and safe annotations, the description fails to state what the tool actually does or returns. With an ambiguous name and a long sibling list, an agent cannot reliably determine this tool's purpose or when to invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.
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 just the tool name repeated: 'Org Join Link'. It contains no verb, no resource semantics, and no indication of what action is performed. It cannot be distinguished from the many sibling tools without guessing.
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 or how it relates to alternatives such as list_org_inbox, get_student_group, or get_session. An agent would have no basis for selecting this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.