list_programsFind UCI degree program IDs by browsing majors, minors, or specializations, optionally filtered by name.
List UCI degree programs. Use to find the program id needed by get_program_requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Which programs to list. Default majors. | |
| filter | No | Optional substring to match against the program name, e.g. "computer". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination or rate limits, but does not contradict the annotations. Given the rich annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single sentence with a clear purpose, no redundancy, and the key information (what it lists and why to use it) is front-loaded. Perfectly concise.
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 simple list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the purpose and ties to a downstream tool, though it could explicitly mention the return format (e.g., array of objects with id and name). This is a minor gap, but the tool is straightforward.
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%, with both parameters (kind and filter) described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states the verb 'List' and the resource 'UCI degree programs', and explicitly mentions its purpose of finding the program id for get_program_requirements. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_departments or list_terms.
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 description provides a clear use case ('Use to find the program id needed by get_program_requirements') and ties it to a specific sibling. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for the agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.