UofT Timetable Builder MCP

find_courses

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search courses by keyword across terms, campuses, and divisions to get short summaries per offering. Use it to locate course codes before checking prerequisites, sections, or building a timetable.

Instructions

Search courses by keyword and return short summaries, one per course offering.

query matches course codes, titles, and descriptions (for example "machine learning", "MAT135", "CSC3"); each result's matched_in says which. term is a name like "Fall 2026" or "Winter 2027", or F, S, Y; omit it to search every current session. campus is St. George, Mississauga, or Scarborough; division is a code such as ARTSC, APSC, or FIS. Results are alphabetical by code. total counts offerings (a course taught in two terms counts twice); page starts at 1. Use course_info with a code for prerequisites, sections, and meeting times.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_courses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`term`	No
`query`	Yes
`campus`	No
`division`	No
`page_size`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.7.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: results are alphabetical by code, total counts offerings rather than distinct courses (a two-term course counts twice), page starts at 1, and each result carries a matched_in field. It doesn't discuss rate limits or empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then parameter semantics, then result semantics, then the sibling handoff. Every sentence carries information; the line-wrapping is slightly ragged but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends space on return-value semantics (matched_in, alphabetical order, offering-level total) and pagination. The only omission is page_size bounds and any indication of what an empty result looks like.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden and does so well: it explains that query matches codes, titles, and descriptions with concrete examples, that term accepts names like 'Fall 2026' or single letters F/S/Y, and that campus/division take specific values or codes. Only page_size (and its 20 maximum) is left unexplained.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Search courses by keyword') plus the return shape ('short summaries, one per course offering'), and explicitly names the sibling course_info for the deeper-detail case. An agent can distinguish it from course_info without reading either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing: use this for keyword search, use course_info with a code for prerequisites, sections, and meeting times. Also states when to omit term (search every current session), which is real conditional guidance rather than an implied default.

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

Deploy Server