Browse shared teacher resources as folders and files, using parent_resource_id to open a folder and paginate results by course or page.
Shared teacher resources (folders + files). Use parent_resource_id to open a folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| course_id | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| parent_resource_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 of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination behavior (despite page/page_size params), permission requirements, or what a folder vs file listing returns — for a no-annotation listing tool this is a notable gap.
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 compact sentences with no filler and the domain scoping front-loaded. The terseness is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity one, so structure itself is efficient.
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 values need not be described, but with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no routing against the many sibling list/get/download tools, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only addresses parent_resource_id. course_id, page, and page_size are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
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 domain ('shared teacher resources (folders + files)') but never states the verb — it never says it lists or returns anything, relying on the tool name to imply that. It gives some sibling differentiation by scoping to teacher-shared content, but 'get_resource' and 'download_resource' are not contrasted.
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 only guidance is 'Use parent_resource_id to open a folder', which is parameter usage rather than when-to-use-this-tool. No mention of when to call list_resources vs get_resource, download_resource, or list_courses, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.