Retrieve paginated course reviews from SJTU, excluding ignored courses, and filter by keyword, semester, or rating. Use it to browse or search student feedback.
分页读取全站评价；会排除已忽略课程。可按关键词、学期和评分筛选。
| 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 | updated_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 this a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine behavioral information by disclosing that ignored courses are excluded from results — a non-obvious side effect an agent could otherwise misread as missing data. It stops short of mentioning default ordering or pagination limits.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the operation and scope before the filtering caveats; nothing is redundant. It is arguably over-compressed given the number of undocumented ordering parameters, but every sentence earns its place.
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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile, but with 7 optional parameters and only 43% schema coverage the description leaves ordering and direction semantics unaddressed. Adequate for selecting the tool, thin for invoking it precisely.
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 43% (below 50%), so the description must compensate more than it does. It covers q, semester, and rating filtering, but says nothing about order_by (three enum values, default updated_at) or ascend, which are exactly the undocumented parameters that control result ordering.
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?
"分页读取全站评价" names a specific verb (分页读取) and resource (评价) and states the scope as site-wide, which implicitly contrasts with the course-scoped, followed, and personal review lists among the siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 word 全站 signals this is the broad discovery endpoint rather than jcourse_list_course_reviews or jcourse_list_my_reviews, and the filters hint at search-style usage. However, there is no explicit "use this instead of X when..." and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether auth is needed for ignored-course exclusion).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.