Check a student's assignment submission state, lock status, grade, feedback, and extensions to assess progress.
The full picture for one student on one assignment: submission state, whether it is locked, the current grade, any feedback already given and any extension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userid | Yes | Student id from students | |
| assignid | Yes | Assignment id from assignments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the main return contents (submission state, lock status, grade, feedback, extension), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when no submission exists.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core concept and lists the specific status components. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
The description covers what an agent needs to know about the returned information: submission state, locking, grade, feedback, and extension. Since there is no output schema, this enumeration is valuable, but it does not address edge cases like missing submissions or access failures, leaving it slightly incomplete.
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 input schema already describes both parameters clearly (userid as student id, assignid as assignment id), reaching 100% schema description coverage. The description adds only general context about a single student and assignment, so it provides no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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 tool's scope: it provides a comprehensive status snapshot for one student on one assignment, including submission state, lock status, grade, feedback, and extension. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submissions or gradebook by emphasizing the singular student/assignment view, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.'
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 'for one student on one assignment' implies the intended use case, distinguishing it from broader list-oriented siblings like submissions or gradebook. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.