beook_list_exercisesLists exercises by course or chapter with reference, number, title, and done state, optionally filtering to unfinished items for selecting and opening exercises.
List exercises with their reference (needed for beook_open_exercise), number, title and done state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course | No | Book id, e.g. GESZHAH | |
| chapter | No | Chapter id, e.g. GESZHAH02 | |
| only_open | No | Only exercises not marked as done |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description needn't restate it. It adds value by disclosing the returned fields, but leaves open what happens when course/chapter are omitted (all three params are optional) and whether results are scoped or paginated.
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; the resource comes first and the enabling detail follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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, naming the returned fields is a useful compensation. However, for a tool with three optional filters and zero required parameters, the description doesn't explain default scoping behavior when course or chapter are omitted, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.
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%, so every parameter is already documented with an example id, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal meaning, mainly clarifying that 'reference' and 'done state' are output fields linked to the only_open filter.
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 and resource (list exercises) plus the exact fields returned (reference, number, title, done state), which lets an agent tell it apart from beook_list_books. It also ties itself to beook_open_exercise as the consumer of the reference, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with beook_read_exercise.
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 parenthetical 'needed for beook_open_exercise' implies a workflow position, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no statement of when to prefer beook_read_exercise or beook_list_books instead. Usage must be inferred from the workflow hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.