List assignments from the USC Moodle with deadlines and submission types, optionally filtered by specific course IDs to manage coursework efficiently.
Lista tareas configuradas en Moodle, incluidos plazos y tipos de entrega.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_ids | 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail—that outputs include deadlines and delivery types—which is useful but does not disclose other traits like ordering or pagination. Given the annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that front-loads the primary action and resource. It adds the detail about included fields without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place, earning a top score for conciseness.
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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the main purpose and output content, but it omits guidance on how to use the course_ids filter, which is essential for full usage. This gap reduces completeness, so a score of 3 is warranted.
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 schema has one optional parameter, course_ids, with a default of null, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the purpose or effect of this parameter, so the agent must rely on the parameter name alone. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, it falls short of the baseline.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Lista tareas configuradas en Moodle' (lists assignments configured in Moodle). It specifies the resource (assignments) and adds detail about what is included (deadlines and delivery types). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_quizzes or list_courses by name and resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage by stating what the tool does, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or conditions for selecting this over list_pending_work or list_upcoming_events. The context is clear, but the absence of explicit direction makes it average.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.