deadline_conflict_checkDetect upcoming days with multiple assignments due at once, weighted by points, to spot deadline pileups early. Read-only.
Find days in the next N days where several assignments are due at once, weighted by points, so you can spot pileups early. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Default 30 | |
| min_items | No | Default 2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. The description does add that results are point-weighted and threshold-based ('several ... at once'), but it never says what a result entry contains (day, count, total points?) or how ties/ordering work, which matters for an analytics 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?
One information-dense sentence with the scan window and weighting front-loaded, plus a short safety tag. The 'Read-only.' clause is the only wasted text since annotations already state it.
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?
Two optional params, no output schema, and rich annotations mean the description only needs to convey intent and the notion of a conflict threshold — which it does. The return shape (per-day conflict entries) remains unstated, but with no output schema a brief hint would have helped; still close to complete for a read-only analytic.
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% (both params documented with defaults 30 and 2), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely gestures at the params via 'next N days' and 'several assignments ... at once'; it does not explain the interaction between days and min_items, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'find days ... where several assignments are due at once', with the added qualifier that results are weighted by points. An agent can distinguish it from plain listing tools like list_upcoming_assignments, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'so you can spot pileups early' implies the use case (workload triage before crunch periods), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as get_workload_forecast or study_priority_ranking, which overlap conceptually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.