List teacher-published end-of-lesson tests with status, score, and due messages. Use limit and offset to browse results.
Teacher-published end-of-lesson tests with status, score, due messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination or sorting works, what authentication is needed, or what the response shape is.
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 terse phrase with no wasted words and front-loads the resource type and some fields. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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 annotations, no parameter descriptions, and only an output schema, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It omits pagination, selection context, and any operational behavior, leaving major gaps for a list tool.
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% for both parameters, and the description does not mention limit or offset or any pagination behavior. It adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.
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 the resource ('Teacher-published end-of-lesson tests') and some returned attributes, but omits an explicit action verb; the name supplies 'list'. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_assessments or list_resources.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The description provides no usage context beyond the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.