Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Blackboard MCP

Blackboard MCP

by Mattlo0546
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bb_browse

List Blackboard Ultra course content including titles, types, text, links, and grade columns. Identify the course by code, name, or ID to view materials and deadlines.

Instructions

List the content in a course (or inside one folder): titles, types, text, links and grade columns. course can be a course code, part of its name, or its id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "course": "<course>"
    },
    "name": "bb_browse"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
courseYes
folder_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and it usefully discloses the returned fields (titles, types, text, links, grade columns), but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or authentication prerequisites.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return content, with the parameter clarification appended. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity read tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the flexible `course` input. Gaps remain around folder_id semantics and pagination, but the core call path is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 does well for `course`, explaining it accepts a code, partial name, or id, but `folder_id` is only hinted at by the parenthetical — its format, validity constraints, and whether it must belong to the given course are unspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (content in a course or one folder) and enumerates the fields returned. It is implicitly distinct from bb_courses, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with the course-listing tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The '(or inside one folder)' clause implies when to pass folder_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as bb_courses or bb_download. Usage must be inferred.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools