Retrieve academic periods/terms for the current school year, showing names, dates, and whether each is active.
Retrieve academic periods/terms for the current school year.
Returns: List of academic periods with name, dates, and active status.
| 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_periodsOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval and discloses the return shape (list with name, dates, and active status). It does not mention sorting, filtering, or edge-case behavior, but for a zero-parameter getter this is minimally adequate.
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 filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the return summary is presented as a compact labeled block.
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 parameterless list-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: what it returns and its scope. No additional context such as pagination or permissions is necessary at this complexity level.
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 already covers everything, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information the description needs to add.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve academic periods/terms for the current school year.' This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_courses, get_results, and get_schedule, and it adds a scope qualifier (current school year).
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 intended use is implied by the purpose: call when academic period/term definitions are needed. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over get_schedule or other siblings, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.