Search departments by keyword and division code to find academic units for course planning. Enter a term and division to get matching department results.
Search departments by keyword and division code (for example computer, ARTSC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | ||
| divisions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that matching is keyword-based, which implies partial matching behavior, but does not disclose result limits, pagination, or exact match semantics beyond what annotations cover.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the examples are directly useful for understanding the expected inputs.
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?
Given the low complexity, two required string parameters, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves the return shape and the exact format of 'divisions' unspecified.
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 must compensate. It maps 'term' to a keyword and 'divisions' to a division code, with examples 'computer' and 'ARTSC', but does not clarify whether 'divisions' accepts a single code or multiple codes (despite the plural name), nor the expected string format.
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 states a specific verb (search), resource (departments), and filtering dimensions (keyword and division code), with concrete examples for the latter. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_divisions, which likely returns unfiltered division data.
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 through 'Search departments by keyword and division code', but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_divisions or get_reference_data. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.