get_timetableFetches upcoming scheduled lessons across all enrolled courses within a specified number of days ahead, including times, venues, faculty, attendance needs, and status.
Upcoming scheduled lessons across all enrolled courses within the next
days_ahead days (start/end, venue, faculty, requiresAttendance, status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_ahead | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the time horizon and lists some returned fields, but says nothing about required permissions, data freshness, pagination, or potential side effects. For a read-only list tool this is a significant gap.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and lists return fields efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves key behavioral questions unanswered, making it only minimally adequate.
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?
There is one parameter 'days_ahead' with 0% schema coverage and a default of 7. The description merely places it in backticks without explaining units, allowed range, or behavior for zero/negative values. The schema itself provides no description, so compensation is needed.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Upcoming scheduled lessons across all enrolled courses.' This distinguishes it from generic calendar tools like get_calendar_events, although it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.
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 (fetch upcoming lessons within a time horizon) but does not state when to choose this over get_calendar_events or other tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.