Find eCampus items by title, including entries without deadlines, and return up to 100 matching results.
마감이 없는 항목을 포함해 제목으로 검색합니다. 결과는 최대 100개입니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| courseId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in structured data: results are capped at 100. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or whether the cap means results are truncated.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is economical, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editorial trimming.
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 no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and three unannotated parameters, an agent still cannot tell how to paginate or scope by course. For a search tool in a crowded sibling set, the description leaves too much to guessing.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It partially explains 'query' (title search) but never mentions 'offset' pagination or the 'courseId' scoping filter, leaving two of three parameters unexplained 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?
States a specific verb (search) and the field searched (title), and adds the scoping nuance that items without a due date are included. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_materials or get_item, so 'items' remains ambiguous in a toolset full of item/material search tools.
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 versus search_materials, get_item, or list_personal_tasks. The 'including items without a due date' clause hints at a use case but is never framed as a selection condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.