Fetch an IEULearn student page as readable plain text to view courses, assignments, exam schedules, weekly content, and lecture recordings. Use any path starting with /student.
IEULearn öğrenci sayfasını okunur metin olarak getirir (giriş yapılmış). Yalnızca /student ile başlayan yollar; ör. "/student/courses/16911", "/student?ann=6160".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | /student ile başlayan yol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: the return is readable text rather than raw HTML, and the session is already authenticated. It says nothing about rate limits, error behaviour for invalid paths, redirects, or truncated/large pages, which are significant unknowns for a web-fetch tool.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and return type front-loaded and the path constraint plus examples immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what matters most: what is returned (readable text), that auth is pre-handled, and which paths are legal, with examples. Only failure-mode and pagination/size behaviour are left unstated, a minor gap at this complexity.
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 single 'path' parameter is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description earns an extra point by supplying two concrete path examples ('/student/courses/16911' and '/student?ann=6160'), which clarify the expected format and that query strings are permitted — meaning beyond the schema text.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it fetches the IEULearn student page as readable text. The '/student' path restriction further narrows the scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_courses or course_content, so an agent must infer that this is the raw-page fallback, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is only implied: the '/student'-only constraint and the example paths show which pages are valid, and '(giriş yapılmış)' signals that authentication is already handled. The description never says when to prefer this over the typed siblings (list_courses, list_assignments, course_content) or what to do for non-/student URLs, so routing between tools is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.