edhec-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Blackboard API (read-only)

bb_api_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch read-only Blackboard REST API data as your authenticated user by passing a path relative to /learn/api/public, e.g. /v1/users/me.

Instructions

GET any Blackboard public REST endpoint as yourself, path relative to /learn/api/public, e.g. "/v1/users/me". Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "bb_api_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful auth context with 'as yourself' and the REST base path, but it repeats 'Read-only' and does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or that response shape varies by endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the path rule and example. No wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only passthrough with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation details: auth identity, base path, example, and GET-only behavior. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the raw endpoint may be unnecessary when a dedicated sibling covers the same resource.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single path parameter, the description compensates by specifying that the path is relative to /learn/api/public and by giving a concrete example (/v1/users/me). It does not explain query-string handling or restate the schema's 500-character limit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (GET) and resource (any Blackboard public REST endpoint) and clarifies it runs as the authenticated user. Its generic 'any endpoint' framing differentiates it from the dedicated bb_* siblings, though it never names those siblings or explicitly says when to prefer them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives the base path (/learn/api/public) and an example, which clarifies how to invoke the generic endpoint. But it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance against the many dedicated Blackboard read tools, so routing is left implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.