Retrieve Brightspace quiz metadata and availability for a course using its ID, with pagination. Does not access attempts, questions, review windows, or Remindo.
Read quiz metadata and availability only. Does not open attempts, questions, review windows, or Remindo.
| 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real value by disclosing what the call will not surface (attempts, questions, review windows, Remindo), preventing false expectations about depth. It stops short of describing what 'metadata and availability' actually contains or how results are ordered.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the positive scope leads and the exclusion list follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 paginated read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers the one thing structured fields can't: the depth ceiling of the call. A brief note on what metadata fields are returned would close the remaining gap.
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 100%, so courseId, limit, and offset are all documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the coverage but earns only 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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('quiz metadata and availability'), plus an explicit scope boundary. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but no sibling is a competing quiz tool either, so the only missing piece is which quiz-related task maps here.
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 negative scoping ('Does not open attempts, questions, review windows, or Remindo') implicitly tells the agent when to look elsewhere, which is useful routing guidance. However, no positive when-to-use condition is given and no alternative tool is named for attempts or questions, so the agent must infer the fallback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.