Fetch an institute's or department's name, website, locations, and university hierarchy placement by providing its ID.
One institute/department: name, website, locations and place in the university hierarchy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unit id from search_units, e.g. "464". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds return-field details beyond what annotations convey lacks explicit notes on null behavior, not-found handling, or side effects online. However, the read-only annotation covers the main behavioral risk, and the description adds no detail about it.
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, compact sentence that avoids redundancy and front-loads the core meaning. No filler or unnecessary repetition.
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 simple lookup tool with a single ID parameter and a well-defined output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention likely usage context or error/edge-case behavior, leaving some contextual gaps.
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 documents the single 'id' parameter well, and schema coverage is high. The description does not need to restate the parameter, though it also adds no extra semantic guidance such as where the ID comes from.
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 makes clear this is a single-unit retrieval by describing it as 'one institute/department' and listing the returned fields. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or contrast itself with list/search siblings, but the intent is still evident.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_units, list_units, or list_departments. The 'from search_units' relationship is only mentioned in the parameter schema, not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.