moodle-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (a key behavioral trait) and the optional nature of 'recursos_ids'. However, it misses critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects on student access, which are important for a visibility-changing tool.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a note on idempotency—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Make visible') and efficiently covers key aspects. Every element earns its place, making it highly readable and focused.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, return values, or how visibility changes affect students. For a tool that modifies student access, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full impact and usage context.

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 compensate. It mentions 'seccion_id' and 'recursos_ids' (modules subset) but provides no semantic context—e.g., what a 'seccion_id' represents or how 'recursos_ids' relate to modules. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to adequately address the coverage gap.

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 the verb ('Make visible') and resource ('previewed section'), specifying the action of revealing content to students. It distinguishes from siblings like 'publicar_preview' by focusing on confirming visibility rather than initial publishing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 implies usage when a section is previewed and needs to be made visible, with optional module selection via 'recursos_ids'. It mentions idempotency, suggesting safe repeated use. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or clear alternatives among siblings like 'publicar_ficha_clase', leaving room for ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.