Check a consolidated to-do list across Moodle and Ed for upcoming deadlines, missed submissions, lessons, announcements, and unread replies so you can plan what to do or submit this week.
综合查看 Moodle/Ed 待办：截止、漏交、Lesson、公告和未读回复；问“这周要做/交什么”用。只查截止用 list_moodle_due；查提交状态用 list_moodle_assignments。返回分类待办。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | 未来天数，默认7 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the aggregation scope across multiple sources and that output is categorized ('返回分类待办'). No auth/pagination behavior is described, but for a read-only reader this is adequate.
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?
Three tight clauses: purpose/scope, trigger context, and sibling routing. Zero filler and the aggregation scope is front-loaded before the alternatives.
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?
Complete for a read-only aggregator: purpose, when-to-use, alternatives, and return shape ('返回分类待办') are all present, and annotations handle safety with no output schema needed. Minor gap is the absence of any note on result volume or freshness, but nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema (未来天数, 默认7). The description adds no syntax or format details beyond that, so baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (综合查看 Moodle/Ed 待办) and explicitly enumerates what it aggregates: deadlines, missed submissions, Lessons, announcements, unread replies. It also names the sibling tools it is not (list_moodle_due, list_moodle_assignments), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.
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?
Gives explicit trigger context ('问"这周要做/交什么"用') and clear when-not routing: deadlines only → list_moodle_due, submission status → list_moodle_assignments. Alternative selection is fully specified rather than inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.