Download a course file or folder from Moodle to your local materials directory while preserving previous versions. Use it to sync approved course content and keep an audit trail of updates.
Download a discovered file/folder module in an approved course to the approved materials directory. Keep old versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | ||
| moduleId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that existing versions are retained ('Keep old versions'), which explains the non-destructive profile. It does not describe overwrite semantics, required permissions, or failure handling.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and destination front-loaded and the versioning caveat placed last. Every clause carries information.
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 write tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers the operation and its non-destructive behavior but omits where ids originate, what the 'approved materials directory' resolves to, and what happens on re-download of an existing module. Adequate but with visible gaps.
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% and the description supplies no parameter information at all. The names courseId and moduleId are largely self-explanatory, but the description never clarifies accepted id forms (they come from list_courses/list_resources) or what a 'module' scope means for a file/folder download.
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 concrete verb (Download) plus the exact resource (a discovered file/folder module in an approved course) and destination (the approved materials directory). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like list_resources, but it never names an alternative tool to complete the routing decision.
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 phrases 'discovered' and 'approved course' imply prerequisites (discovery/selection must have happened first), which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus sync_courses or list_resources, and no stated exclusions or preconditions for the call itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.