Fetch paginated reviews for followed courses, sorted by publication time descending by default, with optional keyword, rating, semester, and ordering filters.
分页读取已关注课程的新评价，默认按发布时间倒序。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | 搜索关键词 | |
| page | No | 页码，从 1 开始 | |
| ascend | No | ||
| rating | No | ||
| order_by | No | created_at | |
| semester | No | ||
| 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, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the pagination behavior and default ordering, both of which largely duplicate schema defaults; it doesn't clarify what 新评价 means (unread? recently created?) or how pagination terminates.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right shape. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
With seven parameters, 43% schema coverage, and several unlabeled filters (rating, semester, ascend), the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still cannot tell how the filters interact or what 'new reviews' scopes.
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 only 43%, so the description is expected to compensate but does not. It says nothing about the filter parameters q, rating, semester, order_by, or ascend, leaving four of seven parameters with no explanation anywhere.
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 gives a specific verb (分页读取), resource (已关注课程的新评价), and scope restriction to followed courses, which separates it from generic review listers like jcourse_list_reviews or jcourse_list_my_reviews. It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 已关注课程 implies the usage context (you must follow courses for this to return anything), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over jcourse_list_reviews or jcourse_list_course_reviews, and no prerequisites are spelled out. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.