Search UGent Ufora course offerings by name, code, or ID, or retrieve current academic year courses; include all years when required.
List courses, or search real course offerings by name/code/ID.
Without QUERY this returns the current academic year unless include_all is true. With QUERY it searches all real course offerings, including history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| include_all | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default scope (current academic year) and the effect of include_all, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or what the return structure looks like.
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 sentences with no filler, and the conditional behavior is front-loaded. The structure efficiently conveys the two modes. Minor room for improvement in connecting the two sentences more explicitly.
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 two-parameter list/search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral modes and parameter effects. However, it leaves gaps around read-only safety, result format, and explicit sibling differentiation that an agent might need to choose correctly among the many sibling 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of 'query' (searches by name/code/ID across history) and 'include_all' (expands from current year to all). This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema, but the description of include_all is somewhat terse and doesn't clarify its interaction with query.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource ('List courses', 'search real course offerings by name/code/ID'). It distinguishes two modes of operation (list vs. search), though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_course_overview or search_course_content to differentiate further.
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?
Usage is implied through the conditional behavior: without QUERY it lists the current academic year, with QUERY it searches all offerings. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_course_overview or search_course_content, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.