Retrieve recommended tutors for a booking request by supplying the request UUID, with an optional limit to control the number returned.
Recommend Tutors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max tutors to return (default 10, max 50) | |
| request_id | Yes | Booking request UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| subject_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 information beyond what the annotations already provide. While annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) cover the safety profile, the description does not disclose any operation-specific behavior such as ranking logic, why some tutors are recommended, or any side effects (though none are expected).
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 lacks any explanatory structure or additional context that would justify its brevity.
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 annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly use the tool. It does not explain what 'recommend' returns or why, when this should be used relative to other tutor-related tools, or how request_id influences the result.
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%, so the input schema already documents request_id and limit with adequate explanations. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already carries that 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 'Recommend Tutors' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, adding no detail about what 'recommend' means in this context. It does not specify the input context (e.g., a booking request) or the nature of the recommendations, leaving it ambiguous compared to siblings like list_tutors or coverage_tutors.
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 versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The required request_id parameter implies it is tied to a booking request, but the description does not state this usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.