Retrieve upcoming actionable events from the USC Campus calendar, filtered by course and time range, to plan your schedule.
Lista próximos eventos accionables del calendario del Campus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| course_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Input schema / properties / limit / defaultPrevious value: -100New value: +50v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict (listing is read-only). The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'actionable' and 'upcoming', which narrows the scope, but it does not describe any behavior like pagination, sorting, or how the actionability is determined. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not enriching.
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 with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured to include parameter hints, but as is, it is efficient and to the point.
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?
Given there are three parameters with no schema descriptions and the description does not explain them, an agent would be unable to correctly invoke the tool. There is no mention of the meaning of 'actionable' or the time window ('upcoming'), and no differentiation from list_calendar_events. Even though an output schema exists, the lack of parameter documentation makes the definition insufficiently complete.
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 0% description coverage for its three parameters (days, limit, course_ids), and the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they affect the results. Since the schema does not document them and the description is silent, the agent has no clue about parameter semantics beyond raw names. This is a critical gap.
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 clear verb ('list') and a specific resource ('upcoming actionable events from the campus calendar'), which is distinct from the broader 'list_calendar_events' sibling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling by name, only through the word 'accionables' and 'próximos'.
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 for upcoming actionable events, which hints at when to choose this tool over list_calendar_events (which likely covers all events). But no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool is named, so guidance is only implied and not strongly prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.