Lists a course's nested modules and topics as flattened paths so assistants can navigate course content; date-restriction bypass flags are never sent.
List nested course modules and topics, flattened with paths. Date-restriction bypass flags are never sent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size; defaults to 50. | |
| offset | No | Result offset; defaults to 0. | |
| courseId | Yes | Brightspace course/org unit ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: date-restriction bypass flags are never sent, implying content hidden by date restrictions may be omitted or restricted and cannot be overridden. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no redundant wording. Every sentence carries information.
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 read-only list tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, there is no output schema, and 'flattened with paths' is the only hint at the return shape; it does not clarify whether the call recurses through all modules or whether limit/offset page over modules, topics or both.
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 coverage is 100%, so courseId, limit and offset are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as whether limit/offset apply to flattened results, so this sits at 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?
States a clear verb and resource: 'List nested course modules and topics'. The 'flattened with paths' clause describes the output shape, which helps distinguish it from a plain course listing, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like brightspace_read_topic.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told how this differs from reading a single topic via brightspace_read_topic, nor what a typical caller would use the flattened tree for. Usage is only inferred from 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.