Retrieve a paginated list of followed courses, with sorting by rating score, count, or average and adjustable page size for quick access to subscribed notifications.
分页列出我关注（通知级别为 1）的课程。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，从 1 开始 | |
| ascend | No | ||
| order_by | No | rating_score | |
| page_size | No | 每页条数，最多 100 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that 'followed' means notification level 1 — but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering behavior, or auth requirements.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and its defining constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of leaving ordering and scope questions unanswered.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a four-parameter list tool with an ordering enum and a boolean sort direction, the description leaves the sorting semantics entirely unexplained and gives no guidance on choosing among the several sibling list tools.
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 only 50%: 'page' and 'page_size' are documented in the schema, but 'order_by' (an enum of rating_score/rating_count/rating_avg) and 'ascend' have no description anywhere. The description's mention of 分页 (pagination) merely restates what the schema already documents and does not compensate for the undocumented sorting parameters.
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 states a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (我关注的课程/followed courses), and disambiguates the scope by defining 'followed' as notification level 1. This distinguishes it from siblings like jcourse_list_enrolled_courses and jcourse_list_ignored_courses, though it does not name them 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus jcourse_list_enrolled_courses, jcourse_list_ignored_courses, or jcourse_set_course_notification. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the parenthetical definition of 'followed'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.