Retrieve academic report cards to review performance details like class, date, and school year for each grading period.
Retrieve available academic report cards.
Returns: List of report cards with name, date, class, and school year label.
| 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_reportsOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does convey that this is a read-only retrieval action and specifies the returned fields, but it does not address authentication, data availability, ordering, or possible absence of results. Behavioral disclosure is partial, not thorough.
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 the action front-loaded and the return summary separated for readability. Every word earns its place.
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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks any guidance relative to sibling tools and does not mention important retrieval context such as authentication or available data scope. It is complete enough to call but not fully contextual.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is already complete and the description has nothing to add. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to document.
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 a clear verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('academic report cards'), and lists the returned fields so an agent knows what the tool provides. The resource is distinct from sibling tools like get_results and get_courses, so the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'Retrieve available academic report cards' implies a use case but does not help an agent choose between this and alternatives such as get_results or get_attachments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.