Lists synced course files and external links from Monash Moodle/Ed, with filters for course, week, filename, and recent additions; returns paths for read_file.
列已同步本地课件或外链，不搜索正文；搜正文用 search_content，读取 path 用 read_file。问“最近新上了什么课件”用 since_days。返回文件/外链和可供 read_file 使用的路径。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week | No | 教学周编号，如 8 | |
| links | No | true=列外链；须同时给 course | |
| query | No | 按文件名或路径筛选 | |
| course | No | 课程号，如 FIT2102；省略=全部 | |
| since_days | No | 只看最近几天新同步的，新的排前面 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Input schema / properties / since_daysAdded value: +{
+ "description": "只看最近几天新同步的，新的排前面",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.1.3Input schema / properties / course / descriptionAdded value: +"课程号，如 FIT2102；省略=全部"Input schema / properties / links / descriptionAdded value: +"true=列外链；须同时给 course"Input schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"按文件名或路径筛选"Input schema / properties / week / descriptionAdded value: +"教学周编号，如 8"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real scope and output context: it does NOT search file bodies, and it returns both file/link entries and paths consumable by read_file. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering guarantees (other than 'new first' implied by since_days), or limits.
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 dense clauses, purpose first, then exclusions/alternatives, then return-value note. No filler; every sentence carries routing or scoping information.
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?
For a read-only list tool with 5 fully documented optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, disambiguation from siblings, and the shape of what comes back. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra by tying since_days to a natural-language question ('最近新上了什么课件') and by framing links as the external-link mode. It does not add syntax detail for week/query/course, which the schema already handles.
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+resource: listing already-synced local course files or external links, and explicitly distinguishes it from search_content (content search) and read_file (path reading). An agent can route cleanly among the three 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?
Explicit exclusions are given ('不搜索正文'), alternatives are named ('搜正文用 search_content', '读取 path 用 read_file'), and a concrete trigger for since_days is provided ('最近新上了什么课件'). This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern done well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.