Retrieve a list of student support links with names, descriptions, and URLs to locate the resources you need.
Retrieve student support links and resources.
Returns: List of visible support links with name, description, and URL.
| 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_student_support_linksOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does communicate that the action is a read-only retrieval and that only 'visible' links are returned, listing the response fields. However, it does not mention auth requirements, empty-list behavior, or failure handling, which leaves a moderate transparency gap.
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. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the exact return fields, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 getter with an output schema, the description is essentially complete: it names the resource and the returned fields. It could add a note about empty or hidden results, but the simplicity of the tool makes that a minor omission.
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 no parameters, so there is no schema or description detail needed about argument semantics. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('student support links'), and explicitly names the return fields (name, description, URL). The tool is also clearly distinct from all sibling tools, so an agent can identify it as the support-links getter without ambiguity.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. The intended use case is implied by the clear resource name and zero-parameter design, but the description never directly states when to choose this tool over siblings; still, misuse is unlikely because no sibling covers support links.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.