Retrieve your enrolled courses and their IDs to enable further actions like grading and announcements.
The courses this account is enrolled in, with the id every other tool needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns the current account's enrolled courses, which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly say the operation has no side effects or mention authentication/permission requirements.
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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and scope, and the final clause adds the most useful cross-tool context: course IDs are needed by other tools.
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 no output schema, the description provides the essential integration fact: returned course IDs are required by other tools. It does not specify the exact return shape (e.g., array of objects), but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline rule for tools with no parameters, a 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('courses'), the scope ('this account'), and the key output ('id every other tool needs'). It distinguishes my_courses from siblings like whoami and list_functions without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.
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 phrase 'with the id every other tool needs' strongly implies this is the prerequisite lookup tool before calling course-scoped siblings. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.