Retrieve all courses with teacher details from Smartschool. Lists every course you have, including their assigned teachers.
Retrieve all available courses with their teachers.
Returns: List of courses with name and teacher information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "get_coursesOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool retrieves all available courses and returns a list with teacher information, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, ordering, pagination, or what 'available' means in context.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the return shape is stated compactly. Every sentence contributes useful 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and the return content. The only notable gap is the absence of usage context regarding when to choose this tool over sibling get_* tools, but this is not critical for actual invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter usage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('courses'), and specifies the result content ('with their teachers'). It is clear what the tool does and is distinguishable from siblings like get_schedule, get_results, or get_periods, which concern different resources.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_results or get_planned_elements. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.