Retrieve a course's combined assignment data from Indus LMS, including EOL tests, assessments, and shared resources as raw payloads.
Unified assignments: EOL tests + assessments + shared resources (raw payloads).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / properties / tenant_idRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Tenant Id"
-}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It offers one useful behavioral hint — '(raw payloads)' implies unprocessed output — but says nothing about read-only safety, permission requirements, pagination, or result volume for what is presumably an aggregate query.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. But it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized — the brevity comes at the cost of the verb, scope, and parameter information an agent needs.
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 structure need not be described. Still, for a tool that merges three data domains and takes an optional course filter, the description omits when it should be chosen over its single-domain siblings and what course_id does, leaving key decisions to inference.
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?
The single parameter course_id has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. With low coverage the description should compensate, but it gives no indication of what course_id filters, nor that omitting it returns everything. Only the fallback awareness that a course filter exists at all keeps this above 1.
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 what the tool aggregates — EOL tests, assessments, and shared resources — which helps distinguish it from single-domain siblings like list_eol and list_assessments. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb (list? summarize? fetch?), so an agent cannot be fully certain what the tool does with those three domains.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this unified overview versus the individual sibling tools (list_eol, list_assessments, list_resources), nor on whether course_id is needed to scope the result. Usage can only be inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.