Autocompletes U of T course codes or titles from a search term, division code, and session ID, helping users locate courses for timetable planning.
Autocomplete a course code/title using a division code and a current session ID.
Thresholds are upstream autocomplete tuning parameters, not pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | ||
| sessions | Yes | ||
| divisions | Yes | ||
| lower_threshold | No | ||
| upper_threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note (thresholds are upstream tuning, not pagination), but says nothing about result shape, ranking, or whether the match is prefix/substring.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a targeted disambiguation, so every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, five undocumented parameters, and no annotation gaps explicitly addressed, the description leaves the caller guessing about input formats and what autocomplete returns (suggestions? ranked list?). It is adequate for a simple read-only lookup but not complete.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates, clarifying that divisions/sessions select the autocomplete scope and that thresholds are tuning knobs — but it never explains term vs. course code/title, nor the expected format of divisions/sessions (single value vs. list).
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Autocomplete a course code/title') and lists the required inputs. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling search_courses, which an agent would plausibly consider for the same intent.
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?
It implies prerequisites by stating the tool needs 'a division code and a current session ID', which quietly points at get_divisions and get_current_sessions. It never states when to prefer this over search_courses or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.