Execute read-only Moodle functions to retrieve student academic data from the University of Santiago de Compostela, including pending work, announcements, events, and exam dates.
Ejecuta una función Moodle incluida explícitamente en la lista blanca de lecturas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| function | Yes | ||
| arguments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds the key constraint that only whitelisted read functions are allowed, which is useful context. However, it does not explain what happens if a non-whitelisted function is requested or describe any error behavior, so it's a modest addition.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Ejecuta'. It has no fluff or redundant wording, though its brevity comes at the cost of information density.
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 tool with generic parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how to identify whitelisted functions, what arguments are expected, or what the response looks like. Given the availability of many specific sibling tools, more context is needed to justify its use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'function' parameter (valid values, format) or the generic 'arguments' object. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid calls.
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 the tool executes a Moodle function from a read whitelist, which is a specific verb+resource and does distinguish it from the many specific sibling tools (it's a generic wrapper). However, it does not clarify what functions are in the whitelist or how the agent can discover them, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
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 implies it is for read-only operations (lecturas) but gives no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the many specific sibling getter/inspection tools. No exclusions, conditions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.