Retrieve upcoming assignments and tasks from Smartschool, organized by date and course, to stay informed about deadlines and plan your schedule.
Retrieve upcoming assignments and tasks.
Returns: Dictionary with future tasks organized by date and course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "get_future_tasksDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a dictionary organized by date and course, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects, data freshness, or pagination behavior. This is a mild gap given that the tool appears to be a simple read operation.
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 brief and front-loaded with the key purpose, followed by a concise return format note. The 'Returns' section adds value without wasted words. It could be slightly more detailed on edge cases, but it is appropriately sized.
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 simplicity (zero parameters) and the explicit output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could clarify whether 'future tasks' includes assignments only or also other task types, and whether it respects date filters or course filters. These gaps could lead to incorrect invocation in ambiguous contexts.
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, so there is no need for parameter documentation. The description clearly states the return structure (dictionary by date and course), which is a high baseline for parameter semantics since there is nothing to clarify.
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 states the verb and resource ('Retrieve upcoming assignments and tasks') and implies a focus on future items, which distinguishes it from generic task retrieval. However, it lacks specificity about which courses or date ranges are included, and does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_courses or get_planned_elements.
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 the tool is for fetching future tasks, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_planned_elements or get_schedule. The presence of a 'Returns' section hints at typical usage but omits any exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.