moodle-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Publish'), returns a specific shape (similar to 'publicar_ficha_clase' plus a 'preview_url'), and has side effects (creating a hidden preview accessible only to teachers). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and return value, while the second clarifies the preview state and next steps. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with preview functionality), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description does a good job covering the core behavior and workflow. It explains the preview mode, return shape, and relationship to 'confirmar_preview'. However, it misses details like error cases or the exact return structure, which could be important for agent invocation without an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not explain what 'ficha_path' or 'course_id' represent, their formats, or constraints beyond the schema's basic types. It adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are only 2 parameters, the baseline is slightly higher than minimal, though it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Publish a FichaClase in hidden preview mode') and resource ('FichaClase'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'publicar_ficha_clase' (which likely publishes publicly) and 'confirmar_preview' (which confirms the preview). It explicitly mentions the preview mode and the target audience (teacher vs. students), making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for publishing in 'hidden preview mode' that teachers can review, and it specifies an alternative ('confirmar_preview') for making it visible to students. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for direct student access or final publication without preview), offering clear context for tool selection.

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